40 Burst results for "Supreme Court"
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on 90.3 KAZU Programming
"Of $81.4 billion with especially strong growth in emerging markets, including India, Latin America in Vietnam. Microsoft, meanwhile, said the rebounding job market has boosted its social network linked in by 50% and Google reported that its digital ad market is especially thriving, powered by ads from its video streaming service YouTube. The surging profits for Big tech come just as the Biden administration sets its sights on challenging Silicon Valley's power. Bobby Allen NPR News San Francisco All three companies are among NPR's financial supporters. U S Appeals court has ruled against a Web designer who refused to create wedding sites for same sex couples, and it sued to challenge the Colorado any discrimination law. 2 to 1 ruling, The 10th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Lawrie Smith's attempt to overturn a lower court ruling throwing out her legal challenge. Smith and a group defending her head, contended the law enforcer to violate her Christian faith. The law is the same one that was involved when the Colorado Baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple that individual won before the Supreme Court in 2018. Oil ended the session at 71 89 2 barrel in New York. I'm Jack Spear, NPR news in Washington. Support for NPR comes from NPR stations. Other contributors include X Chair Maker of.
Conservatives Need to Draw the Line to Curtail Ubiquitous Porn
"And i i really believe that the porn example is a pretty good. I think there's broad agreement here that we need to curtail. The spread of ubiquitous hot high-speed pornography in our culture. There were two laws passed for this in the nineteen ninety s with a republican house and a democrat senate democrat president the communications decency act which we actually argue a lot about now because of its section to thirty provision for big tech and the child online protection act. The cd was gutted by the supreme court and the copa. The child online protection act was held up in the courts as well but there was overwhelming support for this. I talked to a lot of young conservatives. As do you young conservatives in particular really want to curtail this stuff. And i i think. Beginning with obscenity as a way to kind of sh- finally have some limits. Some standards here is a great way to begin. There's no first amendment protection for it. And it's a recognition that liberty requires the suppression of of certain appetites and liberal education requires the cultivation of certain virtues and a conservative society needs prudence. We need to be able to say yeah. Words means something we can kind of know things in and we can kind of guide how we're going to govern ourselves and we really can't tell the difference between drag wing story our in church on sunday or a porn star and political speech than we can't tell the difference between between anything and we can't govern ourselves but just fascinated that really sharp people whether david french ben dominic That they would fall for this. I mean it seems to be kind of pure libertarianism. that in in seconds falls apart. I mean we just said it right. You know if you wanna bring. Let's bring in the racist. We wanted to be a big ten. I don't have to agree with them. But bring them in. No listen speaking of buckley when he founded national review in the fifties He specifically said that we're not going to let the john birch irs in. He understood that there are. We wanted to be as big a tent as can be but we have to draw the line. If pita can't do that everything falls
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Jesse Kelly
"That's a huge problem, but I think the next Republican president plants in 2024 Has to get in. And just totally clear house at the video did just totally clear house, the FBI. Um you basically have to fire as many people as you can in those organizations and staff it well. So that they can start the slow work of remaining rebuilding trust. A man speaking with Blake Masters, he's running for US Senate in the seat. We need Arizona and a C. We can have, like the Supreme Court. Oftentimes our justice is that obviously we kind of have the numbers now, if you're looking at them at Republican or Democrat, But our justices seemed to get in there and simply lose their dag on minds. I understand you're not a Supreme Court justice. So maybe you can't speak to this. But why? What are We doing wrong and this vetting process because in the Senate, you'll be part of it. Yeah, I think part of it is just the cultural push Right? Like Supreme Court justices are all too human and they want to be like to. I mean, they read their press. And maybe it's a problem. If you let the entire mainstream press establishment become Hyper left wing. So you know, we got to do a better job getting less. Robert You know less? Certainly It's like Souter was the the original mistake there, right. He just drifted so far left, um, what we need. Moreover, justices you know Thomas and Alito And, you know, I think Justice Thomas becomes charmingly more sort of radical and committed to his originalist interpretation philosophy over time. That's what we need and You know, it's like, Remember when Josh Hawley was really grilling some judicial nominees even if President Trump's And the Wall Street Journal lost their mind about it. Like how dare you? Uh, you know, just not except in blind faith, The Federalist Society's recommendations. How dare you, Senator Holly do your job independently like no, That's the exact kind of attitude we need each individual senator. Needs to really vet these nominees and make sure that we are getting someone more like an Alito. Or more like a clearance. Thomas. Hey, man, Josh, if we could just clone clearance, Thomas like 9000 times we'd be doing fine. All right. Like, what are you having for dinner tonight? Man. I'm going to an event here in Phoenix. Very excited to talk to a couple of legislative district. And, you know, I'm sure they'll have some. Uh oh, you're on the rubber chicken dinner circuit. That's what you are. The rubber chicken. I'm not yet sick of it, which I think is a good sign. What Blake about your perfume on My website is Blake masters dot com. Please go check it out. We intentionally made it clean and easy to park. I hate when you go on most candidates, Websites stuff to start popping out at you Volunteer here donate here. You can't even tell what the candidates stand for so none of that go to blake masters dot com. That's what I think That's what I bring to the table. Blake masters dot com Go there now. Black appreciate you brought it. Thank you, Jeffrey. Take care. All right. Now I made a promise to you that I was going to tell you a story. Story. Nobody else on the planet could tell you a story about me and Mike Pence. And leaving when the chips are down. Why did I have a strong opinion about Simone Biles earlier today? You're about to find out next miss something..
The Blonde Leading: Britains Two Years Under Boris Johnson
"At the stroke of midnight on what was dubbed freedom day in britain last week clubbers hit the dancefloor starting what is in effect a grand epidemiological experiment watched by the world restrictions on the size of gatherings social distancing and masks all lifted this weekend a major music festival called latitude happened in the county of suffolk with forty thousand. Attendees the unlocking is powered by a belief in the strength of britain's vaccination campaign although deaths remained low and cases have fallen from a peak last week. Nearly thirty thousand people at day are still catching. Covert and five thousand. People are hospitalized. The architect of this bold plan is prime minister. Boris johnson who has as of this weekend but office for two years. The dodgers the doomsters the gloomsters. They outgained to get it wrong again. The people are british politics columnists. Adrian wooldridge hardly knows what great to give for the prime minister's performance but appropriately. He puts it in the way. Mister johnson's alma mater oxford university does alpha versus gamma. And there's plenty of work to mark. This was quite frankly extraordinary. Hectic two years he's proved parliaments for which he was rebuked by the supreme court is expelled. Twenty one grandees from the conservative party. Costea ms majority and he's being reelected with a massive majority. If you look at his life personally he's had a child he's supposed to second wife. He's marriages stood. Wi fi almost died all curve. Nineteen so there's been no
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Michael Berry
"Meeting with police unions on bail reform legislation. The House Republican caucus chair Jim Murphy says today's gathering at the state Capitol is only reinforcing the importance of redoing the bond setting system. Our bail system is broken. Violent criminals are able to leave jail and continue to victimize members of the public when they should be behind bars, The Houston representative says Texas Democrats have to return to the state to get the measure passed for the sake of police and the community. Democrats are in Washington, D. C in protest of an election security bill. They're calling voter suppression. Former congressman and failed the U. S Senate and presidential candidate but to Iraq has been very vocal in supporting the runaway Texas Democrats. Political analysts think he's likely foreshadowing to run for governor. O'Rourke has not announced his candidacy for anything, but he donated $600,000 to help keep State Democrats in D. C. Three Republican U. S. Senators are calling on the U. S. Supreme Court to overturn the landmark ruling that led to the legislation of abortion nationwide. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Mike Lee of Utah and our own Senator Ted Cruz, filed a brief yesterday with the nation's highest court in it. They argue Roe v. Wade decision should be thrown out. Several states would be able to enact previously halted abortion rules. If That happened. Ktrh news time 603 a down day on Wall Street as stocks fall ahead of a busy earnings report after the closing bell. Now the check of your money here is Max gains at obedient wealth solutions..
Congressman Darrell Issa on Winning Back the White House
"Next is gonna be exciting. I think two thousand twenty. It's going to be even more exciting. Having seen the president recently new york. I'm convinced he's going to run. I think he's gonna win. One of the biggest challenges we face if that occurs. We got a win the house. We got to win the senate. We're going to take back. The white house is how we get good people onto the bench and into the next administration you were nominee a trade nominee for the trump administration. The democrats blocked you left right and center. of course. they're going to do that to anybody. Who's good and who's going to be a fighter but isn't the biggest challenge just finding people who are willing to do what you did down to actually put their name down for position after what we've seen happen to people who believe in america thrust you're exactly right that The brutalizing Using the criminal justice system using the media Of nominees has only intensified. most americans. See it at the supreme court level but it occurs all the way down to the deputy assistant secretaries and ambassadors The foreign affairs committee stranded. Tens of people myself included Because bob menendez the most honest member of the senate gordon himself So simply objected. And the arcane rules of the senate The majority allowed that at of course you're now seeing the opposite suddenly your everyone's rushing through and they don't even have a legitimate. There's through so the challenge. We have is to stop the double standard either either block biden nominees or don't tolerate the blocking of your nominees when When things are reversed in another three years
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on Ben Shapiro
"Is terrible. Still, the Supreme Court has declared that you have the right to buy pornography for an adult. I don't just because there is a quote unquote right to do. Something does not mean that you always approve of the use of the right, however. If we're going to have an anti discrimination rubric in the United States, and we are going to say it's not okay to discriminate against people on the basis of everything from identifying as a member of the opposite sex to raise like that entire broad spectrum. Then the notion the only people who can be discriminated against our white conservatives seems to be a bit of a problem going to the states fight back against that. That's one possibility. The other is we're just gonna get two separate sets of service providers, one for conservatives and one for liberals and listen, we here on the right. I'm happy to make money off of that. Because if there if there's going to be a right wing PayPal, I'm happy to found it and I'm happy to have people use it. It's fine with me. I'll make a lot of money. It is horrible for the country. As neutral spaces disappear. We have no relationship with the people who live next door to us. And that means that the further polarization and split in the country all of which I talk about in the new book, the authoritarian moment, but It is a deep problem is getting worse every single day already in just one second. I'm going to talk about the new covid crammed down because the amount of panic that is being evidenced by the media over what's going on with the delta Variant is wildly out of proportion with the actual fact I'm gonna show you some stats. People apparently don't care about and it's it's pretty alarming. How how insane people have gotten about this. We'll get to that in one second first ever browse in incognito mode. Well, let me ask you a different question. Whoever read the fine Texas to what incognito mode even is it turns out that your activity might still be visible to your employer. Your school or your I s P How in the world is that incognito to really stop people from seeing the sites you visit? You need to do what I do and use Express VPN Think about all the times you've used WiFi to coffee shop hotel, even at your parents' house Without express VPN. Every site you visit could be logged by the admin of the network that is still true, Even when you're in incognito mode. What's more, you're hoping that provider can also see and record your browsing data in the U. S. They are legally allowed to sell that data to advertisers. Express..
Georgetown Law Professor Barnett Explains Why Court Packing Is Unconstitutional
"You in when we need you. Court packing is unconstitutional. This is a statement you gave to this. So called Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court, which is shocking to me in and of itself. I'm sure the Supreme Court justices are keeping an eye on this and it could well affect them and depending on how they feel about things. Tell us what you you said to the commission and which is not printed here in reason Magazine. Yeah, I testified orally, and I submitted written testimony, which I recommend that people take a look at because it's got a longer version of the article, and really mark. The argument is actually very simple. And that is that this Congress does have the power to set the number of justices at any number of wishes, and that number is varied from six on the low side to 10 on the high side. The last 150 years. It's been nine. But whenever Congress changes the law, it has to do so constitutionally that and you have to ask what power is it using to accept the number and change change the number? And it's the necessary and proper clause, which gives Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, its powers, including and the powers of any other department, which is the judicial department. That's what it is, which means a law to change the number must be necessary. And it also must be proper. So we have to look and see what the meaning of necessary is and what the meaning. Alright, let's slow down because you make it very, very important point. This clause. Which is kind of tucked away necessary and proper clause. As the court recognized this as an important clause, absolutely, including in the affordable, including in the Affordable Care Act challenge in the Affordable Care Act Challenge. Five justices said that the individual insurance mandate Was not a proper exercise of Congress's power. Um they can't make you buy insurance under the commerce power that's improper under the necessary and proper clause. Mhm. So this is
Fresh update on "supreme court" discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"Let's be clear the official version of america. The one that's on the law books. Thanks for supreme court decisions like anthony. Kennedy's planned parenthood versus casey. That official america is evil. It says abortion is okay through all nine months of pregnancy. It says you can marry someone of the same sex. It says that the civil rights act of nineteen sixty four covered transgender bright. Thanks thanks to trump's appointee gorsuch. How how can that be anyway. The fact that we are we haven't paid enough attention and we don't have good institutions. We let a couple of cronies from the federalist society right right list of nominees on a bar napkin and they had it to trump and he goes okay because he doesn't know well. It could have been a lot worse. Let's be honest. I mean. I think that much. It could not have been that much worse. I mean his own appointees didn't even support over the stolen election. Donald trump could have just picked names out of a hat and he would have done. Just as well as amy me. Barrett and brad kavanagh and neil gorsuch. I'm sorry no that was absolutely welcome back. I'm going to question john's mira. What he has just said very important conversation. Folks don't go away down. Looked over jordan. And what did i kennedy. Hey folks. I'm talking to john. Iraq is the eric metaxas. Show john. you're making a point and as usually interrupted you. But so make the point. But then i want to go back to the trump appointees to the supreme court go ahead. The official on the law books version of what america means in other words based on supreme court decisions. That haven't been overturned. That official america is he's evil it says partial birth abortion is fine. Same sex marriage is fine. Bruce jenner can go expose themselves to two girls at high school locker room because he claims he's a woman all these things these these positions of the muslim radical sexual liber teens. They've pretended are imposed by the constitution. Roe v wade was ally not a mistake ally cases. Ep planned parenthood. A lie bust overkill. Their base have a wise about the constitution. If you read din. American christian founding by mark david hall he constitutional scholar crews that since the nineteen forties liberal secular court appointees have been perverting the constitution to pretend that we live in a radically secular republican that our constitution was designed to keep christianity down to keep it at bay. Because it's a dangerous or these are. These are not just mistakes there lies. We need to overturn these lies. We need to do it by putting better people on the court much much better people than donald trump scraped out of the barrel dumped on the plane. Now let's go there because this is really a radical thing to say in this day and age. I'm not saying i disagree with that. Unfortunately i know if you say something probably all end up agreeing with it very soon because you don't just make statements but it's a horrifying thing to imagine that what you just said is true. In other words. I think that on many important things cavenaugh gorsuch anne barrett would rule rightly but recently Let's just talk about their unwillingness to see to look at the evidence in terms of what happened in the election. Texas put forward this lawsuit and they said on behalf of all the states. We need to have clarity. This is a mess. Our votes in texas are not counting. If you've got all these other things going on in these other states we're taking this supreme court perfectly legitimate perfectly right in court. Didn't look at the evidence and say we don't agree. They refused to look at the evidence. And if amy coney barrett and gorsuch and cavenaugh had said we want to see this evidence which we would have assumed that they would the evidence would have been looked at and we would be having a different conversation. What do you think it was. Because i talk about this all the time. This election is horrifying to me. And this has to be uncovered. And i believe it will be uncovered. Stay tuned folks but john. How is it possible in your mind that these three justices could have cited with roberts and said we will not look at this. It seems to me political cowardice social prestige. They didn't want to be marked out. They want to get the same treatment. Clarence thomas did brad kavanagh. One of the one of the treatment he'd gotten to stop wanted to redeem himself and not be considered radioactive in hated all throughout his life. He wanted to be treated the way justice. Roberts is treated. He gets invited to the national press club. He his wife doesn't get the stink at the country club We saw what happened to clarence thomas. And in fact he provoked in him a religious awakening. He returned to his childhood creek catholic faith. He became a daily churchgoer. Being lied about being lynched on television. Had a profound effect. On clarence thomas by all accounts brett. Cavanaugh was always the go along to get along kind of person he we. I was at college kneel at the same time as this guy he was a conservative. he was a conservative. I never heard of his existence because he kept his head down as he wanted to make it in america. He wanted to go be like the lost. Never heard him speak about anything. Then he goes and works for the bush administration. He cl clerks under anthony. Kennedy the architect of the nautilus vision of america as real techy about the mystery of existence and after the second bond we realize it's candidate grrrrrreat. Anything bad so the fact. I hoped that being crucified as he was red cab would wake up and say i don't care what people think of me. I don't care about the country club. Burned down for like care. I'm gonna fall the constitution nuts. That's not what happened. What happened was he said uncle. And but i mean john this is. This is a big deal stockholm syndrome. The idea that these people you just said it. I mean after he'd been through that hell that he would not. I'm always curious. I'm sure my audiences as well. What do we think happened. Do we think that. Roberts made the case to the three of them. Listen we are one branch of government. This is an election the specter of gore v. bush. And what happened. Twenty years ago is here. We need to stay out of this no matter what and somehow. He persuaded them that. This was a separation of powers thing. No no no. Those kind of arguments don't persuade people he went to them and said your lives. We hell bilby rioters on your front lawn and your kids won't feel safe.
Who Is Venezuela's President?
"But in agreement about who the government is in venezuela of late. This dynamic has like so many other things being more or less precisely the opposite of what it should. The country's president nicolas maduro tolerates little opposition while a goodly number of venezuelans and dozens of other countries. Don't think he's really the president anyway. The question of who presently is the legitimate government of venezuela is currently being examined by the supreme court of the united kingdom at issue is fourteen tonnes of venezuela's gold stored by the bank of england. It is quite a prize. Nearly a billion. Us dollars worth amounting to around. Fifteen percent of venezuela's foreign currency reserves the regime of president. Nicolas maduro would like access to this trove the better to fight. It says the covert nineteen pandemic ravaging venezuela. Although a few skeptical souls have suggested that maduro whose oversight of venezuela's public finances to date does not inspire complete confidence just might be more interested in further enriching himself and or his cronies venezuela a normal ish sort of country the repatriation of its. Gold should be barely any more controversial a request than the one any of us makes when we withdraw money from our bank account however the united kingdom where the bank of england is located is one of the countries which recognizes as venezuela's rightful president. Not nicholas maduro but opposition figurehead on guido. Less there be any doubt the. Uk's government this week reiterated its official position that it is quote. Clear
Federal Judge Blocks Arkansas Law Banning Most Abortions
"A federal judge blocks in Arkansas a law banning most abortions a new Arkansas law banning nearly all abortions has been blocked by a federal judge pending a legal challenge U. S. district judge Kristine Baker issued a preliminary injunction putting a hold on the Arkansas law that was to take effect on July twenty eighth the Arkansas law bans abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency Baker called the law categorically unconstitutional since it would ban abortions before the fetus is considered viable Republican lawmakers in Arkansas and several states want to force the U. S. Supreme Court to revisit the nineteen seventy three roe V. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide the court will hear arguments in the fall the case about whether states can ban abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb hi Mike Rossi up
Press Secretary Jen Psaki Confirms That Biden Is Colluding With Tech Giants
"You know what? Let me play Jen Psaki. First we'll play a little bit of peppermint Patty here and her just really stunning words from the lecture and I can't believe she said this and didn't no one in the White House caught it. She said this about the government's efforts now to work with Facebook, a supposedly air quotes, private company to track and flag free speech on the site. Check this out. This is a big issue of misinformation specifically on the pandemic. In terms of actions, Alex that we have taken our we're working to take. I should say from the federal government, we've increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon general's office. We're flogging problematic post for Facebook that spread this information. We're working with doctors and medical professionals to connect to connected medical experts with popular with popular who are popular with their audiences with with accurate information and boost Trusted content, so we're helping get trusted content out there. You believe this? You believe what she just said? Well, do you understand that? How bad of a screw up a tactical mistake. This was why Folks. There's long precedent in the Supreme Court. Another federal courts as well. The appellate circuit level There's a long precedent establishing the fact that the government obviously because of the bill of rights and freedom of speech cannot quell free speech outside of very limited conditions. Everybody gets that right. You're frequently here. If you say fire in a movie theater, by the way, your band and muted instantly from any social media feed. I have, you know, you know the well. The government can stop free speech. You know, fire in a movie, too. There's no fire in a movie theater. It was an Oliver Wendell Holmes thing that cases since been tossed that that's not the standard. That's not this and stop saying that that's a leftist thing because they do no homework at all.
'American Marxism' Explains How Joe Biden Is Getting Away With Crime
"Was fundamentally altered by the United States Supreme Court under pressure from Franklin Roosevelt. Does that mean? We have to put up with it for the rest of our time? Anything. Joe Biden is getting away with what he's getting away with. He stands on the shoulder. On the shoulders. Obama, who stands on the shoulders. Of LBJ. Who stands on the shoulders of F. D. R, stands on the shoulders of Woodrow Wilson, who in some way stands on the shoulders of Theodore Roosevelt. And they all stand on the shoulders of the early so called progressive intellectuals. Who are the bastard Children of Marxism. All of this can be proven. All of it is proven. If you've looked at any of the prior books But this book is the most activist book I've written since liberty and tyranny. It lays out the case. Of how they're developing mobs. How they're promoting. The fundamentals of Marxism. How they're using race. How they're using ancestry. How they're using. Gender.
Court Refuses Appeal of Ex-Cleveland Cop Who Shot Tamir Rice
"A high court refuses an appeal of a next Cleveland cop who shot to mere rice the Ohio Supreme Court has announced it will not consider an appeal by a police association over the firing of a white police officer who shot and killed twelve year old Tamir rice in twenty fourteen Cleveland fired Timothy Loehmann in twenty seventeen not for killing rice who was black but for providing false information on his job application Lomond it was a rookie was responding to a call placed by a man who said somebody was waving a gun around the man also told the dispatcher the gun could be fake and the person might be a juvenile I'm Shelley Adler
Victoria Valentino, Bill Cosby Accuser, Speaks About His Overturned Conviction
"Bill Cosby came down this week, chances are pretty good. Your reaction was the same as ours in the newsroom. What just happened here? It was a stunning ruling the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, throwing out Cosby's sexual assault conviction and releasing him from prison. Cosby, who is now 83 flashed the V for victory sign to a helicopter overhead as he trudged into his suburban Philadelphia home after serving nearly three years of a 3 to 10 year sentence for drugging and violating Temple University sports administrator Andrea Constand in 2000 and four Cause we spoke with ABC news after he was released over body had defense to say Wait one second. This doesn't match up with the truth. This is not what I was taught in college. This is not what I was part in all the former Cosby Show Star was one of the first celebrities tried and convicted in the ME two era. Can't stand and her lawyers called the ruling disappointing, as did many of the as many as 50 women who accused Cosby of similar actions. One accuser, Victoria Valentino spoke with NBC's Kyra Phillips after his release. First of all, How are you feeling right now? It's been a long day of very distressing day, a very emotional day and a very infuriating day. I think all rape survivors. Have an impotent rage because they are not able to really be listen to be validated be vindicated when he received his guilty, guilty, guilty verdict. We thought we had received justice. What
Dawn Staley and Tara VanDerveer Push for Equity in NCAA Sports
"It is a really great to reconnect with you. And you've been down this road. We're talking about so often right now as you were gathering information for your talking to so many of the key players that have played a role in all this afternoon. And how are you Paul it's always a pleasure. Thanks for africa for a weeks for college sports. It has been really remarkable. And i want to talk about the aspect that you wrote about this this week in the post because i thought i was reading about myself even though i was a little bit outdated for for your piece because we all start as young reporters college college sports scandal was the ticket and we finally reached a point as you write about. We're the whole thing got turned upside down. Tell us about what you learned in. In some of the people that you spoke and the conclusion that you reached. Yeah for sure. I this story i did was sort of like we all understand. You know where we are with the supreme court and obviously you know gin ta you know. Really changing sort of undermining his roles doing a complete one eighty But it's done in the past fifty years. At least out i wrote about the media angle And i think that that that's the way to sorta queue this amateurism story because you know a very long time uncovering college sports scandals you know always a really important job for a sports writer for a journalists. They gave out pulitzer prizes in nineteen eighties. When a small medium sized papers and kentucky arizona uncovered Casting given to players from
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"You're not always the best position to assess your fitness for a job like supreme court justice. I have seen no signs of any kind of decline in justice. Breyer so i don't think that there's anyone out there saying you can no longer do the job. But that's something that sometimes happens without a whole lot of warning so so you mentioned that those kinds of considerations are at work as well. I mean it is true. I think we expected if we're going to hear announcement. There was a good chance that we would hear it on the last day of the term yesterday. But that's not an ironclad rule. We could hear in what remains this week. We could hear next week occasionally. Justices have announced their intent to depart the court within a couple of days after the end of the term. So i wouldn't say that the door has closed this term but obviously he hasn't told us that he's going yet and so right now i think no one is actively expecting to hear from him in the next couple of days but i think it remains alive possibility shoe that point during the twenty twenty election we heard plenty from the left and to some extent from joe biden himself about possible reforms changes to the supreme court. So i have some polling here on lifetime appointments and whether there should be a limited term age limits. That's pretty popular with american. So sixty percent of adults favor turmoil. Age limits with only twenty two percent opposed. Meanwhile packing the supreme court expanding. The size of the supreme court seems pretty unpopular. Right thirty eight percent in favor. Of forty two percent opposed. Does it seem like any of those changes or reforms or likely to come during the joe biden presidency. I think that many questions about what's possible renewed a lot turns on the filibuster whether it will remain a requirement to overcome filibuster in order to get legislation enacted and you could expand the size of the supreme court by ordinary legislation. Right sort of an interesting thing. It feels like that should require a constitutional amendment but no there's nothing in the constitution about the size of the supreme court. All you need and if you know simple majority was enough then you could tomorrow add some seats to the supreme court although as you say it's not popular in the same way. Term limits are popular term. Limits are complicated. Because you probably wouldn't need to amend the constitution to impose term limits not. Everybody agrees with that but they would certainly be vulnerable constitutional challenge. All there are creative ways you could structure you would say you've got a limited term but you remain a supreme court justice nominally and you get salary and you just have a different kind of status. Made you sit by designation on the lower courts. But you're not like forced out at the game entirely maybe do that by statute iffy but amending the constitution. You can certainly do to impose an eighteen year old sometimes people now we're talking about even like fourteen or twelve year term for supreme court justices if they went into effect. Perspectively couldn't probably kick out the ones who are already on the court and we've sort of lost the habit of amending the constitution..
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker in Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case
"A right to refuse services for same sex wedding ceremonies. This case involves Arlene's Flowers in Richland, which refused to provide flowers for a same sex wedding argue waited, arguing it violated their religious beliefs. The high court is declining to take up the appeal to a lower court ruling crew members are safe after a Boeing cargo
Federal Executions Halted; AG Garland Orders Protocols Reviewed
"The justice department is stopping federal executions after a spate of inmates received capital punishment in the final year of the trump administration Attorney General Merrick garland says he's imposing a moratorium on federal executions while the justice department reviews its policies and procedures expressing concern about equal justice in the criminal justice system and humane treatment with questions over the use of some drugs provided in a lethal injection the trump administration carried out thirteen federal executions in a six month period after announcing they would resume in twenty nineteen although our review is under way to buy need ministration recently asked the Supreme Court to reinstate the death sentence for the Boston Marathon bomber Jackie Quinn Washington
Supreme Court Upholds Arizona’s Voting Laws
"Arizona's governor touts a big victory for voters after the Supreme Court upheld a new state voting law in the 6 to 3 decision. The court upheld the law, which dealt with so called ballot harvesting and votes casted incorrect precincts. Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, says the decision is a big win for the rule of law and the integrity of state elections.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich Previews Pending Lawsuits Against Biden Administration
"You know what you have done. And what you're doing is crucially important, because I think challenges By Republican attorneys general What Joe Biden is doing across the border wherever there can be some kind of standing and you know, given Massachusetts versus EPA, you guys have a lot of standing and Attacks on what he is doing from a state perspective. Is one of the most important ways to at least try to slow down or stop what they're doing to this country. Don't you agree? Absolutely. And, you know, mark. We have actually three lawsuits related to immigration right now, and we actually just did get an adverse ruling. You know, we sued the Biden administration saying that you know his failure to file follow title eight and deport the 1.2 million people with deportation orders who in the statute, federal statute requires it. The federal judge said that we did have standing and she said that there is a harm to Arizona from the bite administration failure to follow the law. But she said she couldn't grab the remedy because of the discretion. So we're obviously appealing that case. And I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't go to the U. S. Supreme Court based on be some recent case law, and so we're we're trying to preserve our borders and protect the integrity of our country. We've also were involved in a lawsuit. So my colleagues and I are challenging the Biden administration's new carbon tax rules, which is once again all about empowering, you know, the far left and you know, green energy folks, so Washington can give favors to all their favorite left to cause us. We have a lawsuit about that. We actually have a lawsuit. We just argued Why sued Yellen and Divide administration over the Covid relief bill. That will restrict or prohibit states from cutting state taxes if they get any Copan money, and I've asked this question rhetorically to people. Why is it that the Biden administration wants to send $14 million checks out to people, But the state of Arizona can't cut state taxes by $1400.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich Explains Supreme Court 6-3 Decision on State Voting Laws
"There was a big decision in the United States Supreme Court today. 6 to 3. Upholding Arizona's election law. And it's receiving passing attention, but it's actually quite a significant victory. I think a lot of the other state legislatures that care about the integrity of their vote. Looking on this with a big smile and we have the attorney general of Arizona is responsible for bringing it in defending that state's election law. Mark Berna vich. It's nice to meet you, sir. Thank you, Mark. Thank you very much for having me on really an honor and a pleasure. Likewise. So tell us what happened here and then what the court decided. Uh, Reader's Digest version is in 2016. The Arizona Legislature had passed guidelines regarding who can collect and deliver ballots, and additionally, Arizona had along this book from the 19 seventies that basically limited the ability of folks to vote out of precinct so The left as they've been doing shortly before elections. Usually, they'll come in and we'll start challenging laws trying to create chaos and trying to stack the deck to their advantage when it comes to election integrity, So I stepped in. I defended our state laws we actually won After attendee trial at the District Court, Of course, the ninth Circuit ninth Circus overturned. That is the over, said the statutes were essentially racist because they couldn't find another reasons. It's write them down, and so I appealed it, and I personally argued the case the U. S Supreme Court. As you just said, Mark, we won 6 to 3.
Conservative High Court Upholds Arizona Voting Restrictions
"The Supreme Court is up holding voting restrictions in Arizona the vote was six to three the court reversed a decision by a federal appeals court that said the measures disproportionately affect black Hispanic and native American voters in violation of a part of the landmark voting rights act justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority Arizona's interest in the integrity of elections justified the measures and the changes don't affect minority voters enough to prove a violation of law in a scathing dissent justice Elena Kagan wrote the court has re written in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness this will set off new calls by Democrats to pass federal voting rights legislation A. Donahue Washington
Supreme Court Upholds Voting Restrictions Put in Place by Arizona Republicans
"The Supreme Court upholds voting restrictions in Arizona. This is a decision that could make it harder to challenge other voting measures nationwide, many of which were put in place by Republicans following last year's contentious presidential election. The court, reversing a lower court ruling that Arizona limits on who can return ballots for another person and refusal to count ballots in the wrong precinct are not racially
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Lawyer of the century s for conservatives who hated the decisions of the warren court. They were still totally fine with the principle of judicial supremacy. They were just biding their time. Till the court flip conservative again. So for the first time in american history there was consensus across the board that the supreme court should have the final say over the constitution. So that settles that who has final authority debate and the debate shifts from who has final interpretive authority now. Everybody says it's the court to how the constitution should be interpreted.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"It's early morning in little rock and the new school day is dawning. What about you sir. Do you know if i got anything to do with. They won't show up here and are conducted the school by the army to make your safety entered the side of the building thousands of people and we were entering the side and i could just get a glimpse of this group and another car. I could hear the radio to hear that. There was and i knew it me and i knew that the sounds the came for the cloud. This was an important moment to the supreme court. The president had sent in federal troops to defend their decision to back up their authority. But the drama wasn't over a few months later. The little rock school board petitioned to postpone their integration. Plan that case cooper v. Aaron eventually made its way to the supreme court and the supreme court feeling bold decided that the state of arkansas wasn't allowed to undermine their ruling in brown v board. And then go way beyond that. The court for the first time explicitly asserts that it is supreme in the reputation of the constitution in was claim of judicial supremacy. The likes of which it never occurred at the supreme court and sites marburg marbury versus madison. Says it's the function of duty of the supreme court to interpret the constitution. But he didn't say everybody's found by it right but the court takes a sentence out of context so there's the famous line in that we're marshall says it is emphatically the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is as. We learned earlier in the episode. What that man in eighteen o three was at the court could decide what the law is. Only the case at hand but in nineteen fifty eight. The court was asserting that it had carte power. A decision in one case apply to everyone everywhere in the country in other words judicial supremacy we the floor and we said the ceiling thing is not everyone was bought into the idea of judicial supremacy yet. It's greeted with widespread skepticism. Because remember most of the people on the left had fought the earlier court battles. They were roosevelt. People and the idea of judicial supremacy was anathema to their understanding. How could they give final. Say power to a court that had stood in the way of so much legislation. They believed in but there is a new generation of liberals who seeing an activist liberal court. Love this so they embrace the idea of judicial supremacy because they're looking at a court enabling.
"supreme court" Discussed on Throughline
"Listening to through line from. Npr will go back in time to to understand the present this week. We're revisiting our episode on the history of the supreme court..
"supreme court" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"Discriminatory action taken by the federal government from one thousand nine hundred forty five to nine hundred sixty or so with the federal government back to one hundred billion dollars of loans to has houses but only for whites and that was called red light. That was called redlining and that this is something. I want to be clear. I don't talk about things outside my expertise. Meaning the supreme court and constitutional law but i have studied decision which is more politics and a your listeners. Really need to understand that are segregation today is not accidental. It's because of deliberate intentional government policies where i grew up in washington new york suburb of new york. My suburb like most of on island would not have happened. Were not for dispatching of mortgages by the federal government and they deliberately limited to white neighborhoods all over the country. Now my neighborhood's houses because my neighborhood had good schools because it houses had good property values. The property appreciate my parents hand out money down to me as a you know and and that that almost never happened for african americans on a national basis. So so what. The supreme court did then is during the during nineteen sixty three to nineteen. Seventy-one to court was very proactive in busing. And other things to help this problem. And then we came to detroit and seventy one and maven seventy-three but i think it was seventy one and In detroit we have today an insurmountable problem in that the suburbs at one time and still now again today with fairly rich because the car industry right you know especially but but especially in the seventies and eighties. Those were really rich neighborhoods with great success and the inner city was all black and all poor. How do you change that. There's only one way to change that. Which is to mix those neighbor to find some way to mix those neighborhoods. And that's what they want. Lower court judges wanted to do and the supreme court and milliken versus bradley said nope that segregation was not. Detroit didn't have a law that said separate schools. All formal discrimination was gone. So it's not the government's fault so the government does not have to do anything about it and that decision changed american history. It's not a decision that people talk about. It was incredibly important and then just one more thing skipping ahead to two thousand six and this is the real tragedy and this is one of the reasons. I just detest..
"supreme court" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"I think the right to own guns is a candidate for that given american history. But you have to believe that. That's a supreme court job is to find writes that aren't in the constitution. I don't believe that i've never believe that. I am pro-choice way down. I met my wife giving a talk to planned parenthood. I volunteer for planned parenthood. Three daughters i fight for their right to reproductive freedom and justice and roe versus wade could not be worse could not be roe versus wade caused more horror for our country than almost any case. Wow because you believe. The the supreme court's job should not be to find a numerator writes in the in the constitutional appeared may use a four letter. Word on this podcast or no. Of course you may. It is not the supreme court's job to make shit up. So i i do. I do a it turns out. That's exactly their jobs. So i- blog at a place called dorfman Once a week or so. And then for five years. I think a blog post. I wrote the gut the most clicks or whatever you call it Was one that said. How do you teach constitutional law in a world where the justices just make should up and let me tell you how but let me tell you how that was triggered because it responds directly to your question if you don't mind play. There's a law professor at nyu named christopher scriven who is really well known in antitrust and some ip stuff and he's really smart and he was not traditionally a constitutional law got then. He decided he wanted to teach constitutional law and he studied at everything and he taught it for a year maybe two and then he tweeted and then he tweeted publicly and told me privately. He told us dean. I don't wanna teach us anymore. Because i can't teach my students this stuff. 'cause it's not law is just making this just the judges making shit up. And that's what and that's an. I cannot impress upon enough. Liberal conservative libertarian. Reactionary communist doesn't matter. They are dealing with vague taxed with imprecise history or no history like drone strikes. How do we have history and drone strikes and they're not bound by anything see lower court. Judges are bound by the supreme court. And i know a lot of federal judges both on the trial level and the court of appeals level. Now i can't speak to this last three years. Wave of trump judges but before that the republican judges and the democrat judges that i knew by enlarge in good faith. Try to figure out what the supreme court said and follow it now. Sometimes there's no supreme court decision they make shit up to but the different but the difference between having to follow the orders of.
"supreme court" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"You know. The supreme court is really weird. We have this myth that it's a group of nine priests who interpret our holy constitution using their perfect knowledge of the law. But you get rid of the robes and they're just a bunch of adults with flabby mortal human bodies you know like they got genitalia flopping around like anybody under there not only that they have friends enemies credit cards dinner plans family problems all the things that we do. Their people is what i'm saying. They live in the same country we do and they are the products of our times. Just like we are which means that they are not in fact. Angels sent from the land of law down to earth to interpret dispassionately. No they're human beings that have all the ideology and biopsies that being a human entails in fact despite the impartial priestly branding. The supreme court has been susceptible to changes and developments in politics in american history. Just as profound as an american institution for instance. If you read the press you'll see that there's a lot of talk right now about how bad it is that the supreme court is suddenly politicize that it's become a place of partisan competition but the truth is there's a brief court has been a contested political space for instance. Here's a quote about the court that could be said by a democrat today. Decrying republican machinations. Here it goes by a fraudulent use of the constitution which has made judges removable. They have multiplied useless judges merely to strengthen their phalanx that was a quote from thomas jefferson himself and he wrote it because he was unhappy with the efforts of the federalist party to establish the court's power over states. That's right in those days. It was not taken for granted but the court had power over state laws at all in fact even though the judicial review of laws is basically what we think of the supreme court as being four today as being at central purpose. That was not a given at the time that it had that power but it was actually jefferson's effort to push the court away from federalism that led to the famous eighteen. O three decision marbury versus madison. Where chief justice. John marshall declared for the first time that the court had the right to say what the law means. That's right judicial review is not in the constitution. The court literally came up with it itself now. Jefferson didn't like this at all. He said that this decision would make the courts quote a despotic branch of government but nevertheless judicial review was established and the supreme court has ever since been the final arbiter on what the constitution says even though that power is not actually laid out in the constitution and in fact was enacted over the protests of one of the founding fathers so point being we have always fought over this thing in fact. The supreme court continued to be the site of battles throughout american history in eighteen thirty seven. Andrew jackson added to justice in the courts to give him two more positions for his literal cronies. But then after abraham lincoln was assassinated. The republican congress reduced the size of the court by two in order to stop. Lincoln's democratic replacement. Andrew johnson from making pro slavery appointments literally. These are politicians and large and small innings. That's not a word but smaller inning..
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"Without 'CAUSE WE WANNA have courts there to be able to stop that and in a world where courts don't have any legitimacy or authority that would be one sort of check on government power that would no longer stand and that could be right now what are the moments that you mention when the country has come perilously close to kind of going over the edge and the judiciary losing legitimacy? Yes. One is during the civil war you had a supreme court that was more conservative more sort of southern oriented. I think it's better way to describe it than certainly President Lincoln was and there's one instance where the court sort of issued. An order to President Lincoln he ignored now is a lot to get into there and there's a lot of disagreement about whether he actually was legally authorized to do that, and so I don't want to get into the specifics on that but that was a a situation where the country was really literally being torn apart by civil war and the Supreme Court played a role in that story I mean going back a few years before that this reported issued the opinion in Dread Scott that was one of the events that's released sort of accelerated things towards civil war and then immediate aftermath there was actually a lot of partisan wrangling about the. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court they remove seats from the court in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson from appointing on the court. Then they added seats after he left office, and so there was a lot of kind of wrangling about the core that period seemed to settle down in the decades after that I think the next really really there was some other blips but the next really really big moment is the one. I talked about earlier this sort of core pack crisis with FDR The nineteen thirties what role did the founding fathers intended for the Supreme Court to have in American government and has not role changed over the centuries or decades? It's kind of unclear. It's debated and there's a lot of people who debate the extent to which they expected the court to even have the power to overturn federal statutes I mean there's there's certainly some evidence that they did. I. Think it is fair to say that they did not expect the court to be as powerful and institution as it has become or maybe to use its power to declare statutes and constitutional nearly as often as. It does. So just by example of that, the court exercised the power of short view to declare a federal statute unconstitutional I believe a twice before the civil war and it now does so maybe not every term. But with some regularity, there's federal statutes here and there that says are in constitutional time not to mention all the state statutes striking down left and right I also think it's hard to imagine the founding generation thinking that. Supreme Court would really decide a lot of issues that really come down to philosophy and values I mean. So we we go to the Supreme Court and ask them to decide some of the questions that divides side like should abortion be legal should affirmative action be legal and things like that and I think the court really has accumulated power in ways that weren't anticipated slowly but surely over the last two, hundred years and so how. Did, we get to the place where we are right now where it seems like we're on the cosmic having this six three conservative majority the court has accumulated a lot of power in his particular weighing in on very divisive issues can strike down you know federal statute as you mentioned, for example, the entirety of the Ford About Care Act if it wanted to in this case coming in November, how did it all get to this point?.
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"You know a certain point, you could be a court were people just aren't listening to your judgments I wanna dig into that a little bit more. But I mean I, why would a new even six three conservative majority court also kind of understand those constraints. And just do what past justices have done, which is as they become the median justice move more towards the center as a sort of self preservation mechanism. I think it's very possible. I. Think that's why you will find that there have been a lot of dire predictions made. It very points in the past about how the court is moving. Right. These same kind of predictions have been made over and over for the past three decades or so and the court has unquestionably moved to the right over that time period but I think it's fair to say at the same time, the court has not done a lot of. Things people necessarily thought it would do or has not acted as quickly as people had expected to and I'm a person who made predictions about what the court was going to do, and I was a little surprised at the extent to which Chief Justice Roberts triangulate. I was curious to see how much that was going to continue over the next few years, and it's quite possible that someone in that conservative coalition might recognize these constraints and I do think it's a certain amount of pressure to be that media justice and it's really all coming down to me. Do I really WanNa pull the trigger on this or not? All that said I think that the Conservative legal movement has really tried very hard to identify people and instill in them. These really rigid interpreted values that discouraged them from taking those kinds of considerations into account, and they really kind of make villains out of people that do you mentioned that there is always the potential that the public could just lose faith in the court and that there isn't really an enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court. What is at stake in that kind of scenario? What happens if Americans lose faith in the Supreme Court's rulings? Do. We have examples from other countries or from moments in American history. So we have examples in American history where we have gone perilously close to that address and then not gone over it in terms of other countries there many other countries that don't have a supreme court that say has the power to overturn statutes or Overturn Federal Statutes, and those countries. They function fine. Britain United Kingdom doesn't have a written constitution for longtime their Supreme Court wasn't even call from court. He didn't have the same kind of power that our Supreme Court has. You had the principal legislative supremacy there, and that's a free country and so I don't think that it's necessarily apocalyptic and there's a lot of people in Academy who say. Let's just stop giving the Supreme Court the power to do all this stuff we've been letting the Supreme Court decide way too many important issues. Why should we do that and that's another class of kind of reforms that people are talking amount. It's an idea called jurisdiction stripping is one of the flavors of that where you just pass statutes that say the Supreme Court is not allowed to decide cases about this topic and let's just have it be settled by legislatures. Now, that's one possibility, but there's other possibilities to you. Also things that we fear are the court stepping in to stop tyranny like if the president starts just jailing people..
"supreme court" Discussed on FiveThirtyEight Politics
"Happy and the question is how unhappy does it make the rest of the country? What are the specifics here of this hypothetical? So six three conservative majority on the Supreme Court what could do that would make it lose legitimacy in the public's eyes just ruling against public opinion too often like what? Are the actual specific things that could put the court in a kind of crisis position in the public's view. Well I think that for a very long time public debate about the Supreme Court has really been a proxy battle about abortion and so I think that is the thing that people are going to be most focused on is a court that moves further to the right where where Chief Justice Roberts is no longer sort of in control. He's really been in control as the median justice and he can prevent his conservative allies from going. Too Far I think if the court were to overturn Roe Versus Wade, there's a debate about where exactly public opinion would be on that question but I think we can safely say it would make a large plurality of the country very upset and would probably mobilize a lot of people on the left but there's other things the court might do that would be troubling and I think something that Progressives Democrats are concerned about is the prospect that a very conservative court would actually stand in the way of progressive legislation. So strike down important progressive. Legislative Initiatives. The court came very close to doing that a few years back in the obamacare case and I think Chief Justice Roberts wisely recognized that declaring the entirety of the affordable character constitutional would have created an unprecedented legitimacy crisis for the court. I. Think it's more realistic to think that a court might do something like that. It gets pushed further to the right with this additional appointment. How has the court dealt with this in the past? Presumably, there have been scenarios previously where the court has struck down legislation from one party perhaps that. Significantly against public opinion, how do the court and public deal with those kind of dissonance as in the past? Yeah we'll. So a couple responses. So I I think this sort of comic is the court is this is counter majoritarian institution that it stands up to majorities and says, no, we're GONNA protect individual rights against you overly aggressive majorities and I think in practice a lot of people who studied the court carefully have concluded that the court has been a lot more majoritarian than it seems and even when the court has done a lot of things that were quite controversial what it was really doing was kind of. Standing against particular regions of the country. So during the nineteen fifty S, you had the Warren court sort of fighting against segregation in the deep South that actually a significant amount of what the court was doing. There had a fair amount of public support outside of the south but there have been instances for sure where the court has really stood in the way of public opinion and I think the most significant one was during the sort of last court pack in crisis the court packing episode under Donald Roosevelt on the Supreme Court that was in power. When he came the presidency was quite conservative, the conservative coalition was. Made up of a mix of Democrats and Republicans because the parties didn't quite have the same partisan alignment that they do today. But there was a coalition of conservative on the court that was striking down a lot of the new.
"supreme court" Discussed on It's Been a Minute with Sam Sanders
"It's much more complicated than it seems. And I also think. Migrants have been used as political pawns on both sides of the aisle for a while. And as soon as stories like these break, they become political. And they become tools for a lot of gets to say vote for this person or that person give money to to this or that. And there's not that further unpacking of what's really going on and what these women really need. And I think. This is a moment for people to question why they glommed onto these stories and how and whether it is for their ends or for the needs of the people actually being hurt. An absolutely. This week has just been so. Complicated. You know because you have a lot of people assuming and I may have contributed to that regretfully that this is Trumpian thing. Right. These hysterectomies that these forced sterilizations directly related to the trump administration. I. Don't I don't think that's the case, and then in that framing that the reporting that I did like kind of outlined some of those reproductive injustices under the trump administration. I have learned this week after doing interviews with women who are patients of this doctor outside of detention that framing made them reluctant to speak to me because they are women who live in rural Georgia who we're very quick to tell me that they voted for trump and they support trump and this has nothing to do with trump in my framing. Made them very reluctant to reach out. You Know Tina. So much of the conversation this last week has been about rb g and the Supreme Court and her replacement and what that means for Roe versus Wade and women's access to abortion. And underscores this reality for the left that the main focus of women's health and reproductive rights politically it's abortion but you know reproductive rights. It's so much more than that. It is also about choosing win or consenting to a hysterectomy in the case of your reporting, it is about access to birth control or any number of things. How does the nature of? AMERICA'S POLITICAL FOCUS Help or hurt women like the ones that you're covering. Who have very little agency in a different set of needs than perhaps allowed US voices? In these debates over the rights of women. When the news emerged that Ruth Bader. GINSBURG had died. I had a very strong reaction in had concerns. Even as an American citizen with lots of privileges. But I, I did think about the women that I've been covering. I report on abortion access law especially across the south and. In the borderlands. You're essentially border patrol gets act like you're a constitution free zone and I spoke to abortion funders across the south and abortion providers, and how sometimes south can feel like for Free Zone you know Roe v Wade is is in effect it's in place, but there are lots of pregnant people especially in this area of the country who cannot access abortion care or who experienced insurmountable barriers. I understand you know the focus in the importance of the Supreme Court but I also know that the courts haven't perfected everyone I also know that court cases don't mean you know on the ground that people can access the care that they need. So it's all it's we needed on it's complicated. Through all of this and and who has access to.
"supreme court" Discussed on Matt D’Elia Is Confused
"The law as written is the law as written. Should be a fucking nine fucking moderates on the Supreme Court. The? FARC You want to change the law, become a politician. You want to enforce the law, become a cop you want to interpret the law, you become a judge. Don't fuck and mix them up. Why the fuck is any judge. Far Up one side or the other of any spectrum politically. Fuck that. The laws are already fucking written. I don't want somebody reading through fuck and political lens through their own ideology fuck you. You're one fucking person you're nine people. All you should just fucking. Be The best ever at interpreting the existing laws as objectively as you can. I don't want some hard right motherfucker deciding the fate of the fucking country or some hard left motherfucker. I want somebody who does what the system was designed to fucking do, which is objectively Interpret. The existing laws that's the system. Fuck you. Fuck you bitch. Connell.
"supreme court" Discussed on This Land
"Yesterday the amount of land, the federal government officially recognized as Indian country. As the jurisdiction of tribes was just fifty five million acres, only two percent of all land in the US. Today that number is seventy, four million. This is Rebecca Nagel and I'm bringing you an update from this land and crooked media. Today the Supreme Court finally made its ruling on the reservation status of eastern Oklahoma. We won. For the majority Justice Neal Gorsuch wrote and I, quote. On the far end of the trail of tears was a promise forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama. The Creek Nation received assurances that they're new lands in the. West would be secure forever. Today we are asked whether the landed these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for the purposes of Federal Criminal Law. Because Congress has not said otherwise. We hold the government to its word. It's been a year since I've spoken to you and a lot has happened not just today's decision, but a completely different supreme court case, new tribal leadership, a second set of oral arguments and our own in-depth investigation on the impact of this decision on past criminal convictions. There is so much to talk about. One Week from today we are going to bring you our coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling, and what it means, you don't want to miss it. Subscribe to this land wherever you get your podcasts..
"supreme court" Discussed on Slate's If Then
"For years ago. A Norwegian writer named Tom egland posted that same photo to facebook. It is a photo of a a nine year old girl running naked the streets and it was removed under the Child. Exploited imagery rural. That's Kate Clinic. A lawyer and writer whose research is focused on facebook and it happened to have been posted by very famous Norwegian author who got very upset and threw a fit on facebook after it was removed and the Norwegian prime minister than posted it and it was removed and then there was a a letter to mark. Zuckerberg was published on the front page of a Norwegian newspaper. Said Dear Mark Zuckerberg mark caved tonight and it was a whole lecture about censorship. I I you make rules. That don't distinguish between child pornography and important war documentary photos. Then you practice these rules without sounds judgment. Finally facebook eventually allowed the photo to go back up but the whole controversy. Kate says was a turning point. I think that they had failed up until that point to recognize how much these content moderation decisions could not be solved just by taking things down and it was just as important to make people feel that they were hurt and that they had voice as it was to remove content that they didn't want to see in the years. After the controversy over the Napalm girl image facebook has continued to struggle with these decisions. They've created huge content moderation operation and endured scandals over doctored videos and D platforming. Facebook simply couldn't settle on a clear system that determined what stays up and what comes down so right now. The company is trying something new creating an independent oversight board separate from the company that will decide what content stays and what goes a group users can appeal to and one that will try to police. What two billion people put online think of it as a Supreme Court for facebook? You're a lawyer. You've written him thought a lot about this. What was your first thought when you heard that they're doing this? I mean I follow these breakouts more than probably anyone. Even I was kind of like well. I'll believe it when I see it. So Kate asked to watch and facebook said yes. For most of the past year she's been an independent observer embedded inside the company as it wrestles with what it Supreme Court Tannen should be. And there've been moments where I've been very skeptical that it's all going to come together and survive and then there have been moments of kind of grandiosity in which kind of like. Wow this is maybe going to change the world forever.
"supreme court" Discussed on Talking Politics
"`This is really interesting. Scott nothing nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit but what you've seen in that case is the use of the common law as yardstick and going forward once we leave leave there will need to be some sort of other constitutional principles which have to be developed to do with the problems that the e you have already dealt with for example example interference with the free movement of goods. Scottish Parliament says minimum alcohol pricing that affects the right of English manufacturers to sell Oleg goods at the price they want to in Scotland. They want to challenge that. How do they do that the moment they do it as saying it's country to the EU treaty when that's been taken away will they then have recourse to some common law principle that says that there should be no discrimination between manufacturers there was an obvious irony here which Che's reasoning around Brexit was about to return to parliamentary sovereignty but then as you get closer to the the UK's exit from the European Union Union. What do you find you find that in the vacuum left by the inability to rely on e. u. Legislation you find British legal institution starting to fill it rather than parliament in some ways. I think what's happening is changing. I think there's no going back. We are in new territory for the British political silence relationship to the judiciary it will not be the same as it was post Brexit for the reasons that you were saying Catherine but it still seems to me that what we're seeing about the role of the Supreme Court today is somehow tied I to the crisis within parliament palm it hasn't been operating as it would have done normally the party system as we saw over the course of the last two three years essentially essentially broke down and that I think is the vacuum that's being filled by by the Supreme Court at the moment and I think once parliament is able to to reorganize itself around parties that have some greater sense of loyalty and are able to sort of follow the whipping system vote in ways that are more predictable along party lines then then I think maybe the recourse to law will not be as in might not be just a lasting change that when should be an if you think we will definitely just snap back into a more discipline okay yes if if that if those sort of parliamentary practices returned in a more party sort of system ways and the need for I think probably won't be as essential essential but I I think there's two different things going on and I don't think you can separate out of this the Kuban issue because it is because the opposition and Pisa these are unwilling to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister that we are in this ludicrous position where we have a government with a negative majority that is being maintained in office by the House House o Commons while the House of Commons and trust act or send the executives delegate of the legislature in order to conduct negotiations..
"supreme court" Discussed on Talking Politics
"Hello my name's. David Runciman and this is talking politics. The prorogation cases reached the Supreme Court. We're right in the middle of it. It's complicated. It's really important. We need lawyer. Luckily we have one the talking politics is brought to you in partnership with the London review of books which is celebrating celebrating its fortieth anniversary for the next few months with an unimproved -able offer get a year subscription and limited edition El Arbi tote bag for just forty pounds by using the Euro Alabi. Don't me food slash birthday in the Catherine Bernard is with US professor of E. You Look Chris. Bitten haven't Thompson when we had Kenneth a couple of weeks ago we had to begin by getting into the Clair's interest because he was party to the case that reach this goal. You'll know no excellent did you watch should instantly panic Kuam. I think gives a master class in how to be a good lawyer rotten the barrack-room liar. Can I watch the afternoon so I watched the other guy. Lewd keen on a lot of people said this is really like watching test match cricket. No exciting Ben Stakes test match cricket but kind of grind devotion where you can do other stuff at the same in time and then suddenly something happens and you think well. That's not it. I watch bits of it is William. I didn't watch any of the Catherine. Let's just kind kind of sketchy in some of the background here. So where do you think we are in this. We've had the the main case laid out by both sides. The commentary is making it quite clear. Ah The issue whether it's justifiable if that's how you pronounce it and then if it is whether the government acted for the motives that panic is saying therefore illegitimately absolutely or unlawfully which one is weighing most heavily at the moment panic skill seemed to be to kind of bury the justifiable issue till the end and really focus on what the government during the justifiability issue is is always very vexed one vicar that goes to the core of our constitution separation of powers traditionally the courts are highly reluctant to get in volt in second guessing political decisions because they are very mindful of the fact that they are not democratically elected and so the approach taken by the High Court of England Wales where they said this is high politics and therefore we the court should not get involved is very much the standard approach and so they ruled the motto wasn't justiciable Scottish. Court takes a very different line they he said no power should be limited. This quite well established case law that says slipped even prerogative powers can in certain circumstances be judicially reviewable and in this case because what the prime minister did so undermined our constitution that not only is it justifiable. Nope we find that there is no peace and so really the reason why this case is quite important is it's really looking under the bonnet of our Constitution to try to understand the constitution actually means yesterday given what you said that was therefore surprising focus on the other side of it. Most of the arguments revolved around what the government was doing including the question of this length of time for appropriation. Could it be justified in terms of the government was justifying it to prepare for Queen's speech to to allow for the party conferences given there was going to be a recess only count seven days. The justiciability issue did seem to be in the background role in the foreground grant. This is the thing I'm struggling to is the justice sh- ability issue simply the court will have to take a view on Amazon. It will come to this area questions surpri question you can't take view on the substance unless there is to use a legal term lockers the right to actually hear the case away with the lawyers for both so is focusing on the secondary issue because they hope that by emphasizing the second issue rubbing the secondary but the second issue it will strengthen drinks and the case for the court find it is justiciable matter because the point they're trying to get across is what certainly the point that. Deena Miller is trying to get across what Boris Johnson did so undermines parliamentary democracy that therefore something needs to be done hence the court should give itself self the right to hear this case what more of senator who question before I bring others and when you look at the government side was really focusing on what it soars was the weakness is in the Scottish judgement so it was so inviting the court to see Israel not as setting some grand principle not as taking a step back and deciding what kind of constitutional order we are but simply reacting to two previous judgments. You're the Supreme Court. Here's the judgment of Scottish court. They made a mistake. He went on about this. They misunderstood the nature of recess. They got it wrong having made a mistake it's easy for you. You can just say that one cook it right. MANCO got it wrong and that's your job as a supreme court it simply to pass judgment on lower court's decisions plausible it is plausible and it may be the appealing way forward out of decision which is so high profile and whichever way it goes will cause considerable shot ground if they were to find against Boris Johnson than it clearly raises serious questions about his continuance as a prime minister if they find against essentially this the Scottish court if they say this isn't just issue master then it paves the way the Nicholas Sturgeon to say look do caught in London. Don't listen to our judges. This is our highest court and you've ignored them if they say the Scottish just made broadly broadly speaking a technical mistake does that give them an out. This is sort of my question because it seems like the government seemed to be hoping we're giving you away out here which is to find find that the Scottish court simply he kept saying it. Lucchini kept saying this was his big reveal. Wasn't that exciting but he said they got it wrong. They made a fundamental mistake. They they say that during recess parliament can recall itself and it calmed but not that much to do with the rest of the case but it's like here's a mistake his euro an end it may be that they go for a very simple solution. They may also say in principle. These cases are justiciable but on the facts of this case there hasn't been abused so this is the sort the middle ground outcome because I suspect what does Laurie them is that you have some power which is totally early on limited and without control and by that I mean I Johnson I think rather cleverly paroled for only five weeks and it was wrapped up with the party conference season but if you take the logical consequence of that you could say well actually he could Perot for a whole year. There's nothing to Asto or three hundred sixty four days. The only one day that punt would need to sit would be to sign off on money issues or more realistically parliament lament is Perot every time a difficult legal issue or difficult or controversial issues heard so the fact that prorogation can be used to turn on and turn of parliament without any control. It'll might be deeply and appealing to the judges they'll just remembered something that Lord sumptious that a couple of nights ago because I didn't come that question was put to and he said well one is tax tax almac to also mention he could've batted away this possibility that the prime minister could simply for extended periods of time parole given up until the next general election action's something like that so there are reasons why poem had to sit but also now under the Northern Ireland executive formation. There's got to be a regular reporting but the point is that it it would be possible to repeal act and then it is possible to have the right to provoke which executive function and if there is no judicial control atol it could be abused and that may be what would trouble the courts. I think the problem though this argument is I it completely ignores the fact that the space to be a political control roll over how the executive uses his power not come through the House of Commons ultimately the electric. We don't have a constitution. That's based on the idea that the only recall so there is to the beasts of power is legal in fact we have a constitution is based on the idea that the recourse for the abuse of power is supposed to be political and I would say that if we end up with the Supreme Court's in this is judicial and finds that Johnson is used the protein in power illegally we into department completely new constitutional territory whether all of the judiciary is concerned at the very same time we've departed into completely new constitution Asian territory where we have an executive that has not confidence in any shape or form of the House of Commons and we have executive that has a minus forty five the majority this executive should not exist and it's it's it's in some kind of constitutional Zombie states far as our constitutions conserve so if we depart accompany on the political side with really long standing constitutional principle that the executive has to have a majority in the House of Commons whilst with departing company on the on the judicial issue side of saying that the judges aren't supposed to assert some higher principle of constitutional law that they opposed over parliament then went completely. I mean I can't begin to think where we are L. Constitution. It doesn't make sense the the paradox is that if the courts were to say that the probation is unlawful. What does that mean in practice. Does that mean that you revert to the order of the Scottish court which is to say that the prorogation Helen for it therefore you set the clock back to the date of per Gatien and therefore all of the bills that have fallen then get resurrected including the bill on domestic Vance and then does that allow for aw the executive then to say actually. We're going to Peru again the day after this one issues it came from the Supreme Court yesterday. Another part of the government's case is that go back to a Halama saying parliament could have stopped this where roots for parliament to assert yourself against the executive and also to prevent prorogation chose not to it focused on preventing no deal in the article fifty issue so we're doing this in the context of parliament having chosen not to assert itself except it is a power of executives prog power a so. It's quite difficult see how palm could have stopped it or Palman could have replaced the exact conwell tons of government on it. I mean this did it. Choose not to or was that actually to simply simply not even try and produce emotion couldn't produce the motion saying that wouldn't accept the use of the progress of couse pound wasn't in session and was it it was because he did it in only twenty gate of August beginning of September. There was enough time for parliament to accept the principle that they needed to move to a general election rather than take the route twitch they took which was to put as a priority not general election avoiding no deal in legislative terms maybe with knowledge in fact that that then meant that that the recourse would have to be through the courts rather than through parliament that seems to me that that was a conscious choice at least not maybe our conscious everyone together but that was a consequence of the way parliament uh hey. I it is important. I think to see as well as there is a reason why parliament the majority in parliament chose this route is is because there are too many people in the opposition including leading the Labor Party who do not think that the opposition leader is a fit person to be prime minister. If that weren't true then parliament could and would have acted differently. I think that this moment we wouldn't be in this position so wanted to come onto the white a question of how g think Katherine the Court sees its role here not just on this issue but more broadly because it's getting the kind of scrutiny it's it's never had I mean this is huge. There's real pressure on them but there was one aspect of it yesterday that struck me. Neither side can talk about one of the primary summary reasons..
"supreme court" Discussed on Skullduggery
"It's tough enough to confirm him would have been tougher yet to change the rules to confirm at that point so you know the strategy that goes on looks good at the time but abernathy was definitely boost to the republican side <hes> question. We've talked about don mcgann. Who's in the news. These days is because the democrats house judiciary are doing everything they can to get his testimony about obstruction of justice by the president as as well as testimony from rob porter corey lewandowski. These are all in the courts right now and will almost certainly wind up up in the supreme court. What does this supreme court do when it gets these cases about whether they can require these his former white house officials to testify or answer mike why we think that cavanaugh ahead they look favorably on executive power who knows but that was part of the reason at the time. They were racing this nomination through. They wanted to get somebody else on the court because they they thought maybe molars whole tenure. What's going to be subject to supreme court decision. I think the general sense out there. Is that the you you know. This is a court. That's friendly to the trump administration. I think this is a big problem with the whole. This is the whole on air for the democrats will get nowhere in these things will ultimately end up in the supreme court and if they don't even gun control say you can do but this is my whole underlying argument in the book that all this politics ticks is poisoning the well so badly here in washington that people are gonna lose confidence in the courts neutral go right but i mean it's getting getting having the only the chief justice. John roberts is concerned about that right any kind of lower the temperature but you can't put things off forever got some point. You have to make a decision and you know bottom line. You don't see these confirmation wars. The intense partisan artisan politics around in all of this getting dialed back. You know he's time soon. I give all these talks and talk about this and people get so depressed in some ways but i like how do you how how do you dial it back. Why would one party when they're in their say. Okay you know we did all this stuff now. We're going to give up some power and and because they know that the other side can can just do it again when they get back in. I don't see this. It's going to take some major change in the culture of these nominations to. I have some kind of breakthrough and i don't see it or legislation changing. The makeup of the corduroy pants are talking about but that's going to be super partisan too i. I think that you know we're stuck with this for a while. You don't see mitch mcconnell slowing down on these judges. He's not saying oh you know we overdone it. No he's saying more and more and more on that uplifting thanks so much for joining us great congratulations on confirmation bias inside washington's war over the supreme court from from scully's death to justice cavenaugh. Thanks guys all right thank you. Have you ever wanted to speak another language. Whether you want to speak.