user: Q: Supreme Court Rules that Jerusalem Passports Cannot Read 'Israel'

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Congress cannot require the State Department to allow Americans born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their birthplace on their passports. Siding with the Obama administration over Congress on a 2002 law, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the 6-3 decision that the Constitution confers authority on the President to recognize foreign governments.

“Recognition is an act with immediate and powerful significance for international relations, so the President’s position must be clear. Congress cannot require him to contradict his own statement regarding a determination of formal recognition,” Justice Kennedy said. The court’s four liberal justices, including its only three Jewish members, all sided with the Obama administration.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito dissented, arguing that the other justices irrationally feared that the world might misinterpret the passport change to mean that America’s foreign policy in the Middle East had also changed.

“Today’s decision is a first,” Roberts wrote. “Never before has this court accepted a President’s direct defiance of an act of Congress in the field of foreign affairs.”

The case was brought by the parents of Menachem B. Zivotofsky, who was born in Jerusalem shortly after Congress enacted the 2002 foreign relations law allowing citizens of Jerusalem to list their birthplace as Israel. George W. Bush signed the bill, but Bush said he would ignore the section that would allow Jerusalem-born citizens to change their birthplace to Israel. The Obama administration has followed suit, calling the rule unconstitutional.

The State Department had warned the justices ahead of their decision that such an alteration could “provoke uproar throughout the Arab and Muslim World.”
What are the most important parts of this text?

A: The court sided with the Obama administration over Congress


Q: Hillary's judgment problem

So Hillary says she didn't break any White House or State Department rules. I don't think that defense will fly. And the homemade server, created for messages between Bill and Hillary, is an absolute non-starter. Apparently Bill has only sent two e-mails in his life — and neither of them to Hillary.

Read MoreHillary's email issue has legs

There's also a dog-ate-my-homework quality to this Clinton episode, with Hillary saying: Sorry, I deleted the remaining 30,000 or so e-mails, so I just can't show them to you.

But those e-mails are out there in some cloud, or in some hard drive, or somewhere else. And Hillary has plainly stonewalled any proposals to have an independent counsel cull through the remaining e-mails.

Frankly, I don't believe any part of that story — how many e-mails she sent to the State Department, or how many are left. Just not credible.

Read MoreThe Apple Watch launch says a lot about Apple's bet on China

And this whole deletion thing is so Nixonian. Remember Rose Mary Woods and those mistakenly erased 18-or-so minutes of Watergate tape? Is it possible that Hillary is Nixon's political daughter, or at least his niece? And then there's the business about the Secret Service monitoring security threats from cyberspace hacking. Just doesn't fly. How do we know? Is the Secret Service going to issue a press release? Do we really believe they were involved in Hillary's homemade server in Chappaqua?

And what about the former ambassador to Kenya, the guy who Hillary fired because he was using personal e-mails? She denied it today, but he's out there giving interviews.

I'm no lawyer, so I can't tell if any laws were broken. And it sure seems like she broke some White House and State Department rules. But to me the real issue here boils down to judgment.

Read MoreThe DOJ's secret phone scanners

Hillary's homemade server system was clearly a security threat. That classified information essential to American protection could be cyber-hacked by Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran is something she obviously should have considered before she went ahead with this crazy scheme. And the notion that we are to believe there was no classified material in her personal e-mails, which included her government e-mails, defies all credulity.

This is bad judgment. It's especially bad judgment for a future president. The American public knows this. And really, so does she.
What are the most important parts of this text?

A:

assistant: So Hillary Clinton says she didn't break any White House or State Department rules. Larry Kudlow doesn't think that defense will fly.