glamorgan (part 2)

JUSTICE GORSUCH^°hard word: So, if I've^°hard word got it right, you want us to adopt^°hard word the fundamental^°hard word fairness^°hard word language from our Fourteenth^°hard word Amendment^°hard word jurisprudence^°hard word but give it different content^°hard word in the Fifth Amendment^°hard word. Is that fair?

MR^°hard word. YALOWITZ^°hard word: I don't^°hard word think you have to adopt^°hard word the fundamental^°hard word fairness^°hard word --

JUSTICE GORSUCH^°hard word: No. But, to get your^°hard word five votes^°hard word, that's^°hard word -- you're^°hard word willing to do that?

MR^°hard word. YALOWITZ^°hard word: I would be willing --

JUSTICE GORSUCH^°hard word: Yeah^°hard word.

MR^°hard word. YALOWITZ^°hard word: -- to do that.

JUSTICE GORSUCH^°hard word: Okay^°hard word. And if we did that --

MR^°hard word. YALOWITZ^°hard word: I'm^°hard word not^°hard word going to lie.

JUSTICE THOMAS^°hard word: Didn't^°hard word the Justice Department^°hard word take a different position in the 1980s, that the PLO^°hard word did not^°hard word have constitutional^°hard word rights?

MR^°hard word. KNEEDLER^°hard word: Well, you say a different position. We're^°hard word not^°hard word taking a position here. But, in those -- those cases were --

JUSTICE THOMAS^°hard word: Well, it's^°hard word different from the non-position^°hard word.

JUSTICE THOMAS^°hard word: Mr^°hard word. Berger^°hard word, I know this is not^°hard word the center^°hard word of your^°hard word argument, but could you just explain how PLO^°hard word and PA^°hard word are persons within^°hard word the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth^°hard word Amendment^°hard word?

MR^°hard word. BERGER^°hard word: Yes. Absolutely, Justice Thomas^°hard word. And I would respectfully^°hard word draw the

Court's^°hard word attention back to the February 2018 amicus^°hard word brief^°hard word filed^°hard word by the United States in an earlier round of this case, in which the government's^°hard word non-position^°hard word was considerably^°hard word more of a position and basically^°hard word said^°hard word there's^°hard word only one type of person that this Court's^°hard word precedent^°hard word has recognized^°hard word is excluded^°hard word from the Due Process Clause^°hard word and that's^°hard word sovereigns^°hard word. And, because the PA^°hard word and the PLO^°hard word are not^°hard word recognized^°hard word as^°hard word sovereign^°hard word by the United States, they are by default^°hard word persons entitled^°hard word to due process protection^°hard word. ... But, ultimately^°hard word, it's^°hard word binary^°hard word, right? If -- if -- you're^°hard word either a person for purposes of the Due Process Clause^°hard word and entitled^°hard word to due process protections^°hard word, or you're^°hard word a sovereign^°hard word state and you're^°hard word entitled^°hard word to the protections^°hard word of the Foreign^°hard word Sovereign^°hard word Immunities^°hard word Act, but there's^°hard word no no-man's-land^°hard word where you're^°hard word neither a sovereign^°hard word state nor^°hard word a person.

JUSTICE ALITO^°hard word: What exactly is the unfairness^°hard word in -- in this case?

MR^°hard word. BERGER^°hard word: In --

JUSTICE ALITO^°hard word: It's^°hard word the -- it's^°hard word too burdensome^°hard word to litigate^°hard word this in New York^°hard word where the PA^°hard word and the PLO^°hard word conduct^°hard word some activities^°hard word?

MR^°hard word. BERGER^°hard word: Well, so --

JUSTICE ALITO^°hard word: What's^°hard word the unfairness^°hard word?