mr. clement? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, when a federal government agency compelled employers to provide something as religiously sensitive as contraception, it knew that free exercise in rfra claims would soon follow. in particular, the agency itself provided exemptions and accommodations for the religious exercise of a subset -- >> is your claim limited to sensitive materials like contraceptives or does it include items like blood transfusion, vaccines? for some religions, products made of pork? is any claim under your theory that has a religious basis, could an employer preclude the use of those items as well? >> well, justice sotomayor, the first step in the analysis would be to ask whether or not there's a substantial burden on religious exercise. i do think this case is, in a sense, easier than most of the examples that you've brought up because here's one where it's so religiously sensitive, so fraught with religious controversy, that the agency itself provides a certain num

mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- aereo's business model is to enable thousands of paying strangers to watch live tv online. aereo's legal argument is that it can make all of that happen without publicly performing. but congress passed a statute that squarely forecloses that rather counterintuitive submission. because although the internet and the thousands of mini antennas are new, the basic service that aereo is providing is not materially different from the service provided by the cable company before this court in 1969. where are they n- >> the -- >> everybody has been arguing this case as if for sure they're not. but i look at the definition of a cable company and it seems to fit a facility located in any state. they have, whatever they have a warehouse or a building in brooklyn. the receipt, that receives signal transmissions or programs broadcast by television broadcast stations. you're taking the signals off of -- >> they're taking signals, right. >> i'm sorry, the

mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. aereo's business model is to allow thousanding of paying strangers to watch live tv online. the aereo's legal argument it can make that happen without publicly performing. congress has statute that squarely forecloses that rather counter intier tiff submission. the internet and mini antennas are new, the basic service aereo is providing is not materially different from the service provided by cable company before this court in 1969. >> where are they not -- >> the -- >> everybody has been arguing this case as if for sure they're not. but i look at the definition of a cable company and it seems to fit a facility located in any state. they have, whatever they have a warehouse or a building in brooklyn. the receipt, that receives signal transmissions or programs broadcast by television broadcast stations. you're taking the signals off of -- >> they're taking signals, right. >> i'm sorry, they are. makes secondary transmissions by wires, cables or other communication channels. seems to me

mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- aereo's business model is to enable thousands of paying strangers to watch live tv online. aereo's legal argument is that it can make all of that happen without publicly performing. but congress passed a statute that squarely forecloses that rather counterintuitive submission. because although the internet and the thousands of mini antennas are new, the basic service that aereo is providing is not materially different from the service provided by the cable company before this court in 1969. justice sotomayor: why aren't they cable companies? >> they're not -- justice sotomayor: i'm looking at -- everybody's been arguing this case as if for sure they're not. but i look at the definition of a cable company, and it seems to fit. a facility located in any state. they've got a, whatever they have a warehouse or a building in brooklyn, that receives signal transmissions or programs broadcast by television broadcast stations. they're taking the s

if i may reserve my time. >> thank you, mr. clement. general verrilli? >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the touchstone for resolving this case is the principle justice jackson articulated in prince v. massachusetts. as he said, "limitations which of necessity bound religious freedom begin to operate whenever activities begin to affect or collide with the liberties of others or of the public. adherence to that principle is what makes possible the harmonious functioning of a society like ours, in which people of every faith live and work side by side." >> that's a statement that is inconsistent with rfra, isn't it? the whole point of rfra is that congress wanted to provide exceptions for the religious views of particular -- including proprietors, individuals. >> no, mr. chief justice, i don't think so at all. in fact, the although i was of course, i was referring to justice jackson's words for their wisdom because it wasn't the opinion of the court. but see, jackson -- >> yeah. but the wisdom you cited is the idea that you don't have imposed, on

. >> do you think mr. clement and this goes back to justice ginsburg question that this treaty have itself regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have them self-executing? >> i think that's an interesting question and i don't think the court needs to answer. i would take the position that if there really were self-executing treaty that try to impose criminal prohibitions and i don't think there's any treaty like that but if there were one i would say here it violates the constitution for the same basic reasons that this implementing legislation does. >> where would you find that in the constitution because there is clearly a treaty power that does not have subject matter limitations and indeed if you go back to the founding history it's clear that they thought about all kinds of subject matter limitations in james madison and others decided quite consciously not to impose them. food where would you find that limitation the constitution?

mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. aereo's business model is to enable thousands of strangers to watch live tv on line. aereo's legal argument is that it can make all that happen without publicly reforming it. congress passed a statute that squarely forecloses that counterintuitive submission because although the internet in the thousands of many antennas are near the basic service the areas providing is not materially different from the service provided by the cable company before this court in 1969. >> why aren't they? >> everyone has been arguing this case is that for sure they are not that i look at the definition of the cable company and seems to fit. a facility located in any state. they have whatever they have a warehouse or a building. that receives signal transmissions or programs broadcast by television broadcast stations or if they are taking the signals. >> they are taking our signals. >> makes secondary transmissions by wires, cables or other communication channels. it seems to me that they little antenna

mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice may it please the court. if the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation as the government insist that clearly exceeds congress's limited enumerated powers. this courts cases have made clear that it's a bedrock of our federalist system that congress lacks the general police power to criminalize conduct without regard to a jurisdictional element or some nexus to distinctive federal concern. the president's negotiation and the senate ratification of the treaty with the coordination does not change that bedrock visible of our constitutional system. >> mr. clemente said the treaty is valid. and implementing legislation seems to largely copy the words of the treaty without adding anything. so it's a puzzle that the treaty could be constitutional but the implementing legislation that adds nothing is unconstitunconstit utional. >> justice ginsburg i guess i would quarrel with your premise which is its true the statute use similar terminology but there's one impo

mr. clement made the point that we would. area areas are incompatible with the c conventi convention. page 45, he says that areas view of what the public performance price is runs straight up against. different from your being recorded. >> we haven't made that argument. it's fully sufficient to comply with our international organizations p.m. that doesn't mean -- it is possible that if this case were decided in the favor, that some of our international trading partners will object. we're not making that argument. the other thing i would say to reinforce the point that mr. clement was saying about the phrase to the public. using his example of the valet parking, using a comparable example of a coat check room. there are conversations all the time in which people place property momentarily at the disposal of another, and then retrieve it later, and it's distributed to them at that later date, not in their capacities as members of the public, but as the true owners of the property. and i think some kind of distinction along thos

mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- aereo's business model is to enable thousands of paying strangers to watch live tv online. aereo's legal argument is that it can make all of that happen without publicly performing. but congress passed a statute that squarely forecloses that rather counterintuitive submission.

mr. clement. mr. clement: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: if the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation, as the government insists, then it clearly exceeds congress's limited and enumerated powers. this court's cases have made clear that it is a bedrock principle of our federalist system that congress lacks a general police power to criminalize conduct without regard to a jurisdictional element or some nexus to a matter of distinctly federal the president's negotiation and the senate's ratification of a treaty with a foreign nation does not change that bedrock principle of our constitutional system. justice ginsburg: but, mr. clement, you aid that -- that the treaty is valid and the implementing legislation seems to largely copy the words of the treaty without adding anything. so, it's a >> it is true the convention in the statute used similar terms but there is one important difference between the convention and the statute and that makes th

mr. clement, four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a few points in rebuttal. let me start with the abortion conscious clause. it's because it tells you something about where congress has drawn the line and it tells you the consequences of the government's position. historically, those conscious provisions have applied to all medical providers, including for-profit medical providers. but we learned today that as far as the government's concerned, that's just congress' judgment. if congress changes its judgment and says that a for-profit medical provider has to provide an abortion, rfra doesn't apply. that, with all due respect, cannot be what congress had in mind when it passed rfra. they also suggested if a kosher market takes the trouble to incorporate itself, then it has no free exercise claims at all. now, you can go back and read the crown kosher case. i took it as common ground, that all nine justices thought that if the massachusetts law there had forced crown kosher to be open on saturday, that that would be a free exercise claim notwithstanding the inc

mr. clement, four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a few points in rebuttal. let me start with the abortion conscious clause. it's because it tells you something about where congress has drawn the line and it tells you the consequences of the government's position. historically, those conscious provisions have applied to all medical providers, including for-profit medical providers. but we learned today that as far as the government's concerned, that's just congress' judgment. if congress changes its judgment and says that a for-profit medical provider has to provide an abortion, rfra doesn't apply. that, with all due respect cannot be what congress had in mind when it passed rfra. they also suggested if a kosher market takes the trouble to incorporate itself, then it has no free exercise claims at all. now, you can go back and read the crown kosher case. i took it as common ground, that all nine justices thought that if the massachusetts law there had forced crown kosher to be open on saturday, that that would be a free exercise claim notwithstanding the inco

mr. clement, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. a few points in rebuttal. first i have to correct the fundamental difference. mr. frederick said he did it in his brief that if you only if you are a cable company and only retransmit locally you don't have to pay a royalty. that's just wrong as we point out in the reply brief. there is a minimum royalty that every cable company pays whether or not they transmit distance digals in. that's just wrong. second, this is not a case as mr. frederick would like to say where the user pushes a button and then after that point aereo is a hapless bystander. if you want to know what happens behind the scenes, the district court used, look at page 64-a to 67-a, because it is explained that all the things that aereo does after the consumer presses the button and after it comes on their phone screen. they are not just a pacified bystander. maybe the reproduction context, pushing a button, there is only one person that reproduces. the conswheacht is the requisite conduct is answered by the transmit c

mr. clement, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a few points in rebuttal. first of all, the senate's role in the ratification of treaties cannot be a sufficient political check, and one reason is that sometimes the precise role they play as a check is to make a treaty non-self-executing. and so, to take justice scalia's hypothetical example of an international treaty that purported to regulate marriage rights, one thing that the senate very well might do in that case is to say, well, we will ratify it, but we're going to make sure it's non-self-executing and maybe we will use our spending power or something to get the states on board, but we are not just going to impose a national solution. so it doesn't make any sense to say that a non-self-executing treaty necessarily, even if it's valid, guarantees the validity of the enacting legislation, because some of the reason that you make a treaty non-self-executing is to preserve federalism. a second point is to respond to the argument, which i think i've already explained why it's

clement -- could this treaty have itself regulated individual conduct? could the treaty have been self executed? >> that is an interesting question. if there were a self-executing treaty to impose criminal prohibitions, i don't think there is any treaty like that. if there were one, i would say that a permit -- it violates the constitution for the same basic reason that this legislation does. >> where would you find it in the constitution? there is clearly treaty power that does not have such limitations. if you go back to the founding history, it is clear that they thought about kinds of subject matter limitations. in james madison and others decided so consciously not to oppose them. where would you find that limitation in the constitution? >> i would find that in the structural provisions of the hostages and and the integrated powers of congress. the enumerated power is the treaty power. so you have to find a constraint on the treaty power. where does it come from? >> it comes from the structural provisions to the constitution. if we had a suffocating

so i want to apologize to everybody associated with tonalist, his trainer, mr. clement. i sincerely apologize. i want to apologize to all the horse racing in the world. i want to apologize to my wife carolyn who literally stood behind me since we started this journey. i want to apologize to my partner perry martin and his family. >> people are going to say the reversal now -- i mean it's very good of you to own up and people were highly critical because it was such a wonderful story leading up to this giving people such hope. carolyn, what were you trying to tell your husband on saturday then? >> i'm going to be honest, i don't remember exactly what i said. i just know, you know, he was very emotional and i was trying to calm him down and remind him that he was speaking loudly, but exactly what i was saying i don't know but i know what i was trying to get across to him. >> and so having time to think about it and giving credit to tonalist was the victor. >> yes, he was. >> so what would you want to say especially to everyone that followed that horse and its owners? >> co

so i want to apologize to everybody associated with tonalist, his trainer, mr. clement. i sincerely apologize. i want to apologize to all the horse racing in the world. i want to apologize to my wife carolyn who she has literally stood behind me since we started this journey. i want to apologize to my partner perry martin and his family. w why. >> why, people are going say, the reversal now? i mean, it's very good of you to own up and people were highly critical because it was such a wonderful story leading up to this, giving people such hope. carolyn, what were you trying to tell your husband on saturday then? >> i'm going to be honest, i don't remember exactly what i said. i just know, you know, he was very emotional, and i was trying to calm him down and remind him that he was speaking loudly, but exactly what i was saying, i don't know, but i know what i was trying to get across to him. >> and so having time to think about it and giving credit to tonalist because -- was the victor. >> yes, he was. >> so what would you want to say especially to everyone that followed

i want to ask if i could join supervisor and president chiu in the memorial for mr. thomas and kathleen was here from the former small business commission and shell had a great impact on the clement street area several years ago wherever i lacking walk there i think of shell i want to be addressed to the memoriam. i have several items on june 19th to just a minute a better understanding of the awe depictions e definitions of the recycling centers on that meeting 80 on june 19th we heard from long term recircles and they raised concerns on the evictions of recycling centers in our grocery store parking lots and even though hearing hearing was spurred by the upcoming recycling centers at church and martha street and the abrupt announcement of the north beach recycling center since the closer of the 45ish9 from golden gate park 5 other recycling places where the northern half of san francisco at the safest way and the outer richmond it was a shock to me i'd been in close krablth contact with safest way and was very insured it was not going to close and it was clear by t