36 Burst results for "Alito"

Glenn Kirschner: It's Time for an Investigation Into Justice Alito

Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast

01:10 min | 4 d ago

Glenn Kirschner: It's Time for an Investigation Into Justice Alito

"You tweeted Congress if you're listening. It's time for an investigation. I'd fashion it an impeachment inquiry of justice Alito, his lies to the Senate to the American people into the late senator Ted Kennedy must be investigated because women's constitutional rights matter. Yeah, I got to get your take on this latest bombshell report about justice Alito leaking. Yeah, The New York Times made it pretty clear in its reporting. I think two days ago, a couple mister and misses Wright had dinner with another couple, mister and misses Alito, and the next day, misses Wright contacted this reverend shank is his name and said, I've got some very interesting information. No emails, please, and then she told him that basically Alito authored the hobby lobby opinion. Another opinion that basically is religion over the rule of law, and that hobby lobby is gonna win. So Alito leaked his own opinion, the hobby lobby opinion. Don't you think he probably also leaked the Dobbs opinions revoking women's constitutional privacy rights? Yeah. And then acted all huffy about it.

Alito Justice Alito Senator Ted Kennedy Wright Congress Senate The New York Times Mister Shank Dobbs
Fresh update on "alito" discussed on Bloomberg Law

Bloomberg Law

00:44 min | 7 hrs ago

Fresh update on "alito" discussed on Bloomberg Law

"Were considering whether Andy Warhol was within his rights to create 15 silk screens of prints using a copyrighted photograph of the musician by rock and roll photographer Lynn goldsmith. In trying to decide if Warhol's work had meaningfully transformed the photograph, the justices posed hypotheticals. Let's say that I'm also a Syracuse fan. And I decide to make one of those big blow up posters of orange prince and change the colors a little bit around the edges and put go orange underneath. Would you sue me? But some of the gels, including the chief justice, pointed out the transformative effect of Warhol's work. It's not just that Warhol has a different style, is that unlike goldsmith's photograph, war holds sends a message about the depersonalization of modern culture and celebrity status and the iconic and he goes through the different features to support that. So it's not just a different style. It's a different purpose. One is the commentary on modern society. The other is to show what prince looks like. My guest is intellectual property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Catton yutan rosenman. Terry tell us the central issue in the oral arguments To understand what's going on here, one has to understand a little bit about the fair use defense. The various defense statutory written into the copyright act, it says that there shall be no copyright infringement. If secondary work is taking advantage of this fair use defense, the fair use defense says courts should consider four non exclusive factors. The very first factor widely regarded as the most important is for the court to look at the purpose and character of the secondary use. There are three other factors that all have to be considered, but that's usually considered the most important. And in a very famous decision by the second circuit, a few years ago, I can per judge laval said that the key to this one factor is whether or not the secondary work somehow transformed the original work and the Supreme Court has since bought into this transformative use test and is now part of the law, even though it's not in the statute. But I would say that the issue up on appeal here Supreme Court is not whether or not that's the law. It's not whether or not the work is transformative. The question really is what does it mean? What is required for a work to be transformative? How do you transform a work in such a way that the fair use defense applies? There are many transformative uses that do not constitute fair use. And so the key here at issue for the Supreme Court is to give some sort of guidance some sort of definition to lower courts as to what constitutes a transformative use that is entitled to take advantage of the fair use defense. At one point, justice Alito questioned whether judges were qualified to focus on the meaning of the work or was that a job that should be left to art critics. And I remember that the second circuit criticized the district court judge for being an art critic, but how do you get out of this without being somewhat of an art critic? Well, it's a great question. And the second circuit in saying that district court judges trial judges are not allowed to be our critics are not allowed to sit and judge the artistic merits of work. Take advantage of a long history going back over a hundred years in that court in the second circuit with respect to artwork, music work, dramatic work, such as plays and novels of saying that trial courts judges can not be critics of the work. And so that's a very well grounded position that the second circuit took the issue you raise is a very good one. Well, if that's true, what do you do? And I think it's somewhat enlightening that the response that the council for the Andy Warhol foundation gave to that question from Alito is that the judge should look at the work and decide whether or not it is transformative or not. In essence, betting the farm on the argument that the second circuit in this long history of judges not being our critics is just wrong as a matter of law. It's a very strong and aggressive position that the Warhol foundation. I mean, you have to remember here, June, what justice a leader started off that colloquy saying was, well, if mister Warhol were alive today, what would he say? What's the meaning of this work that transformed it? He wouldn't tell you, though. Right? Right. And neither would counsel for my Warhol foundation. They essentially said, well, mister Warhol's testimony is not available. So he's like, but it wouldn't have any meaning, even if it did, it's up to the judge to look at it, which kind of surprised me. Which side did better in the oral argument, would you say? So I was a little bit taken aback the extent to which you could place certain justices on one side or the other. We've talked about this before June, but the passing of justice Ginsburg and the retirement of justice Breyer has transformed this court with respect to copyright law. Those two justices were the opposite ends of the spectrum justice Ginsburg taking a position to copyright should be strongly enforced, really strong advocate for strong vigorous copyright protection. And justice Breyer was at the other end of the spectrum. Opposing strong copyright protection. And so we were all wondering in the copyright community. What this new court would do in this really important case. And keep in mind, this is the first time since 1994 that the Supreme Court has taken up a fair use question. And so it's not just a really important Nodal point in copyright law that we're faced with, but a point in time in which we don't have the two principle advocates for the competing positions on the court anymore. And yet notwithstanding that, it seemed that there were justices willing to step up and fill those roles. So on my scorecard here, I had justice Kagan and chief justice Roberts in the camp that would say that this was a fair use. Adjusters Roberts, in particular, just came flat out and said, this is a different purpose. The Warhol prince had a different purpose from the photo. He said, Warhol sends a message about the depersonalization of modern culture and celebrity status. For all practical purposes that he's voting in favor of the war health foundation, Kagan's remarks took a similar approach. And then on the other side, I had what I think are four justices for the position that this is not fair use, justice Thomas justice Alito, justice Barrett and justice canton chief Brown. All of whom posed hypotheticals to the council for the Warhol foundation. That sort of took this whole transformative use at new meaning test to its ridiculous limits justice Alito, I guess that's the question. Well, if you'd simply change the photo so that prince was smiling, would that be a transformative use because it changed the meaning from a vulnerable young rockstar to a half rockstar. Would that be good enough? Similarly, justice Thomas, he asked a really interesting question. What if all you had done was colorize the edges of the black and white photograph of prince, such that they were the colors of Syracuse university and you were intending to send a commentary on supporting the sports teams at Syracuse university. These sorts of hypothetical posed are typically intended by judges to point out the ridiculousness of somebody's position. And so the fact that those four justices all went that route with sort of extreme hypotheticals, sent a message to me that they are leaning towards this not being a fair use. I will point out the Warhol foundation to the extent I have this right at this point. Would have

Warhol Lynn Goldsmith Warhol Foundation Supreme Court Mister Warhol Terence Ross Catton Yutan Rosenman Andy Warhol Foundation Alito Justice Breyer Goldsmith Syracuse Laval Ginsburg Terry Adjusters Roberts Kagan Warhol Prince War Health Foundation Thomas Justice Alito
John Zmirak and Eric Discuss Samuel Alito's Dismantling of Roe V Wade

The Eric Metaxas Show

01:57 min | Last week

John Zmirak and Eric Discuss Samuel Alito's Dismantling of Roe V Wade

"Samuel Alito, in his decision overturning roe V wade and Planned Parenthood V Casey, he doesn't talk about the morality of abortion. He doesn't talk about the unborn baby being human. He doesn't talk about Christianity. What he does is exactly what the lawyers did in the movie denial. Systematically dismantles the false intentionally deceptive, shallow, dishonest arguments offered in roe V wade and Planned Parenthood V Casey to pretend that the U.S. Constitution as adopted in 1787 and amended after the Civil War to pretend that the constitution secretly entailed the right to abortion. And he systematically obliterates all the arguments offered by the left in favor of abortion being protected by the U.S. Constitution. He doesn't show that they're false. He shows that they're garbage. They're garbage. They're worse actually than David Irving's falsification. But just to be clear, so the parallels clear to those listening in case people are missing it. In other words, rather than play to the crowd, knowing that abortion is a monstrous evil, just like we know what happened in the Holocaust is a monster evil. Rather than doing that, what Alito does just as Deborah lipstadt's lawyers do. They effectively say, no, we're going to pitch our argument at the legal experts. Right. We're going to show legally bloodlessly how this fails completely on a legal basis on a basis of fact, we're going to take a motion out of it, not that emotions ought to be taken out of it. But these are the tax taken by the lawyers in that case. And then by Sam Alito, so that's a brilliant parallel. That's

Parenthood V Casey Roe V Wade Sam Alito U.S. David Irving Deborah Lipstadt Alito
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:27 min | 3 weeks ago

"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Action, but is there a middle ground? And Tom Brady and Gisele Bündchen seemed like the perfect couple, and their divorce appears to be the model of amic ability. For almost as long as affirmative action policies have been used in college admissions, there have been legal battles over whether they should be allowed. Now more than 40 years after the Supreme Court first considered the matter, the conservative justice has appeared to be ready to eliminate racial considerations in shaping a student body. My guess is former U.S. solicitor general Gregory garr, a partner at Latham and Watkins. He won the landmark case of Fisher V University of Texas, which upheld the race conscious admissions program used by the University of Texas at Austin in 2016. Reading all the analysis after the arguments, it seems that almost everyone came to the same conclusion that the court is ready to throw out the consideration of race in college admissions. Did you come to that conclusion as well? I did. I mean, I think certainly based on the oral arguments here is the challengers had the upper hand. Yesterday and that's not surprising going in, but having said that, there's a lot that remains to be seen about how the court gets that result in how broadly it might go in these cases. So let's talk about some of the general areas of the questioning. A question was, can educational diversity be achieved without taking account of race with race, neutral approaches? Does that fact itself considering that indicate that the conservative justices have already moved on from weather race can be taken to account and looking at what happens next? I think that it means that they're focused very carefully on the application of strict scrutiny in this context in particular looking for narrow tailoring and the existence of race neutral alternatives. For some conservative justices it may also mean simply illustrating that universities can achieve educational diversity in other ways without explicitly considering race as part of the admissions process. So I think different justices we're looking at that issue through a different lenses. Some of the conservative justices expressed hostility. It seemed to me to explicit consideration of race in an application. Justice Samuel Alito had a lot of problems with this checking of the box about your race on the online application. I mean, justice clarence Thomas said, I've heard the word diversity quite a few times and I don't have a clue what it means. Where the liberals able to bring that around or not. Well, generally speaking, there's a stark divide on the court in terms of how the justices look at this question of diversity and the interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and otherwise. And I think you saw that by the questioning that the justices had for the advocates. The more liberal justices obviously came at this issue from the perspective of there being a compelling interest in achieving diversity on college campuses and elsewhere and whether or not they were able to persuade their more conservative colleagues. I'm not sure, but certainly that was one of the more interesting interplays going on throughout the oral arguments and reflects the sort of stark divide that the justices have on this issue. When you argue the Fisher case, and I know that the three justices who were in the descent are still on the court, the chief justice justice is Alito and Thomas, did it seem as that they were as stark about what they said about diversity and using race to achieve diversity? Yes. I think you know from the standpoint of the more conservative justices, their position on this issue has been clear for some time and I think that's true of justice Thomas, although as I recall he did not ask questions during the Fisher argument. But certainly justice Alito. And even the chief justice who is more moderate in a number of areas, but in this area has been very outspoken against the consideration of race and admissions. In this case, just as Gorsuch seemed to have a concern that using race is sort of, it's like a quota, a racial quota. Was that also a point in the Fisher arguments? So that was settled by bakke that schools could not set actual quotas for admission spots based on race. But I think some of the justices had concerns that even the more holistic consideration of race as in the Harvard or UNC policies could operate as a quota and to the extent that the justices had those concerns as a very problematic fact for the schools. There was considerable amount of questioning about whether minority students could write in their essays about their experiences with race, discrimination, and some of the conservative justice that seemed to indicate that they could. Yeah, I think that was a very interesting and potentially quite important aspect of the oral argument. There seemed to be a majority of justices who were aligned against the use of race in a sort of check the box form as part of the admissions process. But even those justices or at least several of them seemed to indicate that an applicant could identify and speak about his race, his or her race in the context of an essay that explained how the person's race affected their own experiences, perhaps led to greater grid or perseverance that would be relevant to considering who that person was and they seemed to indicate that that would be okay. And if that were the ultimate upshot of the court's opinion in the case, then at least in that sense, schools could consider applicants race as they wrote about it in the context of a personal essay Coming up. Is there a middle ground? This is Bloomberg. An invitation from Catholic cemeteries. On November 2nd, all souls day, the Catholic cemeteries of the archdiocese of Washington invite you to pray for deceased family and friends during

Gisele Bündchen Gregory garr Fisher V University of Texas Justice Samuel Alito Tom Brady Latham Fisher Watkins Alito University of Texas Supreme Court clarence Thomas Austin Gorsuch Thomas U.S. bakke UNC Harvard Bloomberg
The Impact of Reagan Conservatives

Mark Levin

01:34 min | Last month

The Impact of Reagan Conservatives

"But this has always been the approach Of Reagan conservatives traditional Conservatives again do not confuse people who sit at think tanks and spit out white papers Or write columns to The Wall Street Journal of national review With movement conservatism look at what the court's done What do you think Sam Alito came from Came from the Reagan administration What do you think Scalia came from before he passed from the Reagan administration Where did Robert bork come from the Reagan administration It was the Reagan administration that started the whole judicial pushback against the activism that had taken place in the 60s the 70s and into the 80s Led by Ed meese the attorney general So don't burn the bridges down Rachel The things we can do and we should do We should learn from the successes But I think most of the complaint here while people are trying to be very philosophical about it isn't about philosophy And it isn't about even politics It's about getting strong patriots in the right position so they'll get something done

Reagan Administration Sam Alito Reagan Robert Bork The Wall Street Journal Ed Meese Scalia Rachel Patriots
"alito" Discussed on POLITICO Playbook Audio Briefing

POLITICO Playbook Audio Briefing

07:32 min | 2 months ago

"alito" Discussed on POLITICO Playbook Audio Briefing

"Playbook. I'm ragu, it's Thursday. Today's show by public trust in the Supreme Court keeps dropping. It's her plateau playbook daily briefing. A new poll from Gallup set for release today shows a drop in approval of and confidence in the Supreme Court. Gallo previewed some of the key findings for playbook. The top line, less than half of Americans say, they have a great deal, or a fair amount of trust in the judicial branch of the federal government. That represents a 20 percentage point drop from two years ago, including 7 points in just the last year. This is the lowest confidence rating for the judicial branch in Gallup's trend by 6 points that contrasts with trust levels exceeding two thirds in most years in Gallup's trend since 1972. The drop in trust is driven largely by a sharp decline among Democrats, whose level of trust is half of what it was when year ago. The new poll marks the first time that less than half of Democrats and independents express faith in the judicial branch. The new Gallup poll also finds a record tying low of Americans saying, the approval of the job, the Supreme Court is doing. Meanwhile, a record high percentage of Americans say the Supreme Court is too conservative. The Supreme Court has long been one of the few major institutions in America to survive with relatively high levels of bipartisan approval. But voters use a scotus now tracked the polarized views of Congress, the president and the media. Here's the thing, the justices themselves are well aware of their diminished standing. The Wall Street journals just brabin recently documented, how justice Selena Kagan and chief justice John Roberts had sparred over the legitimacy issue during public appearances this summer. Here are some key quotes from Kagan at recent events in Rhode Island and Montana, respectively. The worst moments in the court's history have been times when judges have even essentially reflected one parties or one ideology set of views in their legal decisions. The thing that builds up reservoirs of public confidence is the court acting like a court and not acting like an extension of the political process. If over time, the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that is a dangerous thing for democracy. This is what chief justice Roberts had to say earlier this month in Colorado. Simply because people disagree with an opinion, it's not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court. Kagan and Robert splits declined to comment to the journal, but in an unusual and rare statement, just as Samuel Alito, author of the Dobbs decision that has driven down the court's approval, directly responded to Kagan's critiques, at least without naming her. This is what he told the paper. It goes without saying that everyone is free to express disagreement with our decisions, and they criticize our reasoning as Stacy fit. But saying or implying that the court is becoming an illegitimate institution, or questioning our integrity, crosses an important line. We can't recall the last time justice has sparred with each other in the press and this manner. Meanwhile, in the victory for much needed transparency at the court, a spokesperson on Wednesday said that the court would continue its pandemic institute measure of offering live audio broadcasts of arguments. Jessica from The Associated Press ads. Monday will be the first time in more than two and a half years that the justices will hear arguments with members of the public present. As it made landfall in Florida on Wednesday, hurricane Ian forced roads and bridges to close, reigned in torrents, and flooded coastal areas on tornadoes, and forced those locals who hadn't already escaped harm's way to bunker down. One thing the hurricane didn't stop, negative campaign ads. Florida governor Ron DeSantis, senator Marco Rubio, and representative Val demings, all of whom are in competitive statewide races this year are continuing to run ads during the storm. Reports Politico's Gary fineout. The hurricane's arrival comes at a pivotal time in the election cycle, less than 6 weeks ahead of the 2022 midterms. Most election officials in Florida are supposed to start sending out mail in ballots in the next week. Gary told playbook on Wednesday night. The campaign has been paused in some ways, but it depends a lot on where someone lives in the state. Some campaigns began to take down their television ads and markets that were directly impacted by the storm, but have left them up in places that have gotten some impacts, but have not experienced the full fury. One longtime Florida politician does not a fan of continuing to politic during the storm, former Republican governor Jeb Bush, Bush told Politico. I think campaigns should shift to helping what will be hundreds of thousands of floridians that will need a lot of the systems. Here's what's up in Washington today starting with The White House at 1135 a.m. eastern. President Joe Biden will depart The White House to head to fema headquarters where he'll receive a briefing on hurricane Ian and the federal response. A two 40 Biden will head to the State Department and host the U.S. Pacific island country summit. At 5 20, Biden will return to The White House where he'll welcome Pacific island leaders and host a dinner at 6 40. Vice president Kamala Harris is in South Korea for last night and this morning, she participated in a bilateral meeting with president Yun soku, met with one leaders from South Korea, visited the DMZ, which is now in a flight back to D.C., the Senate is in today, the house will meet at 10 a.m.. And if you happen to see NASA administrator and former Florida senator Bill Nelson around today, you might want to wish him a happy 80th birthday. If you're looking to strike up some small talk, you can mention the recent NASA mission from earlier this week, sending a spacecraft named dart directly into an asteroid 7 million miles away to see if it could alter its course. But everyone is going to bring that up to him today. So maybe, try picking up his horoscope. Politico's FDA reporter Katherine foley is here to help. Catherine hello. Hi, how are you? I'm good. Katherine, I'm told specifically by you on slack that you are not only a great FDA reporter, but you know a little bit about astrology. Yes. I sure do enjoy horoscope in my spare time despite loving and believing in science through and through. So what do you know about Bill based off his birthday, September 29th? Does it surprise you that he's a former senator and current NASA administrator? Fantastic question. So all I can say about Bill Nelson from his birthday is that he is a Libra through and through. I don't know his full star chart, but knowing that and knowing he was born in sort of the first third of the month, I would assume he is a very charming charismatic person, comes across as very level headed, and probably has an affinity for the finer things in life, so I could absolutely see someone like him being a senator. And I think someone being nice and balanced and having a fair sense of judgment would make a fantastic leader and probably head of NASA as well, right? Yeah. A lot of high pressure situations there. Not only being the head of NASA, I actually just saw this. He was the second sitting member of Congress to travel into space back in the 80s. He was on the space shuttle Columbia. So I don't know if there's anything finer than a $500 million baseship going into orbit. I mean, yeah, that's definitely one of the finer things in life. I would be very curious to see what the rest of his star chart has because, you know, maybe he's got something that draws him to a floor of adventure in there too, because as much as cool as it is to go to space, I really do like both of my feet planted firmly on the ground. Fair

Supreme Court Gallup Kagan hurricane Ian The Wall Street journals brabin Selena Kagan Florida Politico Ron DeSantis senator Marco Rubio Val demings Gallo Gary fineout John Roberts justice Roberts Samuel Alito White House President Joe Biden
Which SCOTUS Justice Carries Judge Bork's Legacy? His Son Weighs In

The Doug Collins Podcast

00:52 sec | 2 months ago

Which SCOTUS Justice Carries Judge Bork's Legacy? His Son Weighs In

"Court now, who do you see if you would say, would carry that, I guess, not mantle necessarily, but that thought process that your father had owned the court now? Well, without a doubt, clarence clarence. And Alito, I mean, I thought the opinion he wrote in Dobbs was masterful. I don't know how you take that apart from the other side. He answered all their questions. They just all knew his lie about him. But and I'd like to see more of from Amy Coney Barrett. I think Kavanaugh is perhaps a little more moderate, but give him time. Yeah. You know, they're all going to grow. I hope in the right direction.

Clarence Clarence Alito Dobbs Amy Coney Barrett Kavanaugh
Remembering Kenneth Starr on 'Life, Liberty & Levin'

Mark Levin

01:24 min | 2 months ago

Remembering Kenneth Starr on 'Life, Liberty & Levin'

"Here he was on life liberty and Levine just a few months ago cut 23 go Welcome back America our first guest really needs no introduction but I'll give him one anyway as judge Ken Starr he was a judge from the D.C. Court of Appeals He was solicitor general of the United States independent counsel one of the great legal minds in the country judge star I have a question here Have you ever seen anything like this in your life with a leak first draft with a political party encouraging protests at the homes of justices with at least early on the Department of Justice taking literally no steps to protect these justices What do you make of this No it's been one outrageous thing after another The leak itself was as chief justice Roberts said in his written statement an egregious breach we all know that And I have frankly been very disappointed that there hasn't been anonymity in the condemnation of the leak as opposed to simply ignoring it And then yes the protests outside the different homes but especially justice Alito's home is really another outrage and one that just cries out for the government to use for the federal government to use its enforcement power You identified the law It's a criminal law It's been on the books for a long time and it should be enforced It should be faithfully enforced

D.C. Court Of Appeals Ken Starr America Levine Justice Roberts Department Of Justice Alito Federal Government
Charlie Pierce on the Chaos in John Roberts's Supreme Court

Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast

01:23 min | 2 months ago

Charlie Pierce on the Chaos in John Roberts's Supreme Court

"So you had a thing or two to say about Jenny Thomas, sir. Oh, yeah. By the way, that Jamie Raskin sound bite that you just played. That's Jamie Raskin. Essentially saying, you bet we want to drag these people in here. Yeah. Well, it's just it's insane that she hasn't been subpoenaed at this point. Because I mean, she literally did try to overturn the now two Wisconsin and Arizona now. Is it that? Wisconsin. No, Wisconsin in Georgia, right? In Georgia. Okay, there you go. Yeah. It's just insane. And Thomas better with you while he wants, but he should be recusing himself on any Trump related anything. The Supreme Court. Yeah, but as you pointed out, he won't. You might as well, you know, you might as well say he should fly out the window. Yeah. You know, I was a Supreme Court building because it's not going to happen. He's having his revenge on the world. He is, he's an officer. And John Roberts has completely lost control. Yeah, it seems like it's Thomas's court at this point. Oh, absolutely. We're Alito. Roberts is completely the last controller was majority. I mean, he's a non factor in the deliberations now. And there are a couple of there are three or four decisions coming down the pike in the fall that are incredibly important.

Jamie Raskin Jenny Thomas Wisconsin Georgia Supreme Court Thomas Arizona John Roberts Alito Roberts
"alito" Discussed on Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast

Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast

05:25 min | 4 months ago

"alito" Discussed on Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast

"But it just makes no sense politically, Charlie. That's the other thing. You just don't get it. I wonder about that because I want to see them pay a political price for it. Yeah. So far, they've been able to do all this stuff. And pay a relatively slim political price. Can we go give me 16? It's just this political hacked Ness goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. I guess there's a new low, but Sam Alito is she wrote about Sam Alito went to Rome to correct some jokes after overturning roe. He said apparently Sam Alito went to Rome and let his free flag by guaranteeing he is now known internationally as a head. Yeah, this is him. Here we go. I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string

Sam Alito Charlie Rome Ness Supreme Court
Supreme Court Political Hackery Revealed in Sam Alito's Rome Speech

Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast

01:22 min | 4 months ago

Supreme Court Political Hackery Revealed in Sam Alito's Rome Speech

"This political hacked Ness goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. I guess there's a new low, but Sam Alito is she wrote about Sam Alito went to Rome to correct some jokes after overturning roe. He said apparently Sam Alito went to Rome and let his free flag by guaranteeing he is now known internationally as a head. Yeah, this is him. Here we go. I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price, what really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine. Wow. The crisis test has Boris Johnson and Trudeau. I mean, now he's admitting it. I mean, it's out in the open now. You've got a Supreme Court, the majority of whom are conservative hacks. Right. And we'll deliver for all the people who and Sheldon White House is right about this and he's been right about this for three years now. He's delivering for their donors the same way a congressman would.

Sam Alito Supreme Court Rome Boris Johnson Ness Duke Of Sussex United Nations Trudeau Ukraine Sheldon White House
"alito" Discussed on WTOP

WTOP

02:35 min | 4 months ago

"alito" Discussed on WTOP

"Is WTO news. Justice Samuel Alito is mocking foreign critics over the Supreme Court's decision to overturn roe versus wade. Alito authored the decision repealing federal abortion rights during a speech at a religious liberty conference in Rome, Alito singled out the leaders of France and Canada as well as the UK's Boris Johnson. He also jokingly said of prince Harry's recent comments. What really wounded me was when the Duke of Sussex addressed the United Nations and seemed to compare the decision whose name may not be spoken with the Russian attack on Ukraine. Harry cited the war in Ukraine and the rollback of constitutional rights in the U.S. as painful events that happened this year. Montgomery county judge has sentenced a man to 25 years in prison for two carjackings, as well as for threatening an ex-girlfriend. Leslie Lee pleaded guilty to charges of armed carjacking, carjacking, and first degree assault last month. Prosecutors say Lee went on this crime spree over a couple of days in November, first forcing a woman out of a Volkswagen while she waited for her daughter at a Silver Spring gas station. The next day, not too far away, pointing a gun at a man park by the winter tower apartment complex on castle boulevard, and ordering him to get out of the car. Two days later, less than a mile away, he was arrested after pulling a gun on the mother of his children. The 37 year old is not eligible for parole. Police say they found a gun and multiple iPhones on him as well as property stolen in a separate burglary. Shayna steal in WTO P news. Money news of 25 and 55, here's Jeff Klebold. Private and charter air travel has soared during the pandemic a record 3.3 million private flights last year, it is expensive, but a Maryland startup doesn't think it has to be as expensive as it is. Errol vontae charges about half the per hour rate others do, it offsets out with membership fees, a $1000 a month for individuals, $1500 a month for families, bringing private jet travel to someone normally flying first class commercial. We have NFL players. We have celebrity chefs. We have professional golfers. You know, we have parties that are businessmen, executives, and all in between. That's arrow vontae founder Patrick britton haar, his fleet flies from BWI and dulles as well as smaller regional airports, charter flying is a good job for pilots. Most of our pilots are former military guys. We have a very strong pool of individuals that come from the navy. Our chief operating officer is a former F-18 pilot. Just raised 9 and a half $1 million for expansion. Jeff

Alito Justice Samuel Alito Duke of Sussex Leslie Lee WTO Ukraine prince Harry Boris Johnson wade Jeff Klebold Supreme Court Montgomery county Rome United Nations Errol vontae France Harry Volkswagen Canada
"alito" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:20 min | 4 months ago

"alito" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"With us right now is a great American patriot cofounder and general partner of new founding and also the president of American firebrand super PAC and friend of the show. Matt Peterson Matt, welcome back to the program. Hey, it's great to be here, Charlie. So Matt, I want to get through a couple news items here. But first, I want to play a piece of tape here from justice Alito's speech. I think he gave it in Rome, which is super scary 'cause that's where the Catholic Church is headquartered and not allowed to do that. And I want to play cut 94 here. And the way the media has responded is a new line of attack that you can see in kind of the smart coordinated circles, the people that are considered to be smarter than not. However, they are all kind of coordinating their attacks around Christian nationalism, play cut 94. Over the last few weeks, since I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a cold string of foreign leaders. Who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law. One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price, Matt kind of mocking Boris Johnson there, Sam Alito, who I think is the best thing George W. Bush ever gave us, probably my favorite member of the court. They're attacking him as being a Christian nationalist. What do they mean by that, Matt? Well, in their minds, of course, they think Christian nationalism is a smear. They think both of those words are bad. And if you put them together, it's too bad things. And that's one big bad thing, and it's a scary monster, which I think in their minds means something like handmaid's tale and enforced Christian religion. They think it's racist too, somehow they seem to only regard whites as Christians, interesting. But white people who are Christian controlling the country and shoving their views down everyone else's throat is what they mean by it. And the hilarious thing here is that neither of those words are bad and when you put them together, you actually get what I think millions of people throughout the country think is normal.

justice Alito Matt Peterson Matt Boris Johnson Matt Alito Joshua solido Gorsuch Catholic Church Charlie Rome handmaid George W. Bush Supreme Court Kavanaugh roe V wade The Washington Post clarence Thomas
New Founding's Matt Peterson on Justice Alito, Christian Nationalism

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:20 min | 4 months ago

New Founding's Matt Peterson on Justice Alito, Christian Nationalism

"With us right now is a great American patriot cofounder and general partner of new founding and also the president of American firebrand super PAC and friend of the show. Matt Peterson Matt, welcome back to the program. Hey, it's great to be here, Charlie. So Matt, I want to get through a couple news items here. But first, I want to play a piece of tape here from justice Alito's speech. I think he gave it in Rome, which is super scary 'cause that's where the Catholic Church is headquartered and not allowed to do that. And I want to play cut 94 here. And the way the media has responded is a new line of attack that you can see in kind of the smart coordinated circles, the people that are considered to be smarter than not. However, they are all kind of coordinating their attacks around Christian nationalism, play cut 94. Over the last few weeks, since I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a cold string of foreign leaders. Who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law. One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price, Matt kind of mocking Boris Johnson there, Sam Alito, who I think is the best thing George W. Bush ever gave us, probably my favorite member of the court. They're attacking him as being a Christian nationalist. What do they mean by that, Matt? Well, in their minds, of course, they think Christian nationalism is a smear. They think both of those words are bad. And if you put them together, it's too bad things. And that's one big bad thing, and it's a scary monster, which I think in their minds means something like handmaid's tale and enforced Christian religion. They think it's racist too, somehow they seem to only regard whites as Christians, interesting. But white people who are Christian controlling the country and shoving their views down everyone else's throat is what they mean by it. And the hilarious thing here is that neither of those words are bad and when you put them together, you actually get what I think millions of people throughout the country think is normal.

Sam Alito Matt Peterson Matt Matt Boris Johnson PAC Charlie Catholic Church Rome Supreme Court George W. Bush Handmaid
Justice Alito Cracks Dobbs Jokes Abroad

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:15 min | 4 months ago

Justice Alito Cracks Dobbs Jokes Abroad

"Want to play for you justice Alito abroad, talking about European reaction to the Dobbs decision. Can we play cut number one of justice Alito yesterday? A few weeks since I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders. Who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law. One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right? All right, so that's a joke. And don't take it as anything other than a joke, because of course, former prime minister Barack Johnson is still the prime minister, but justice Alito is gracefully telling non Americans that they don't get the make Supreme Court law. The United States Constitution dictates what Supreme Court law is. And even if they made a mistake, 49 years ago with roe and doubled down on that mistake, 30 years ago in Casey, now the court has it right. It is up to the states.

Alito Dobbs Supreme Court Barack Johnson Boris Johnson Justice Alito United States Casey
Doug Deep Dives Into Recent Supreme Court Decisions

The Doug Collins Podcast

02:16 min | 4 months ago

Doug Deep Dives Into Recent Supreme Court Decisions

"When you look at the courts decisions over the years, you either have a group that is called more of the originalist or constitutionalist that believe that the founding document, the constitution, is the banner by which everything else is measured. It's the measuring stick. And if it's in the founding fathers, enumerated rights, they said, this is what the federal government is going to do. And then they have riots at plenty of rights that are interpreted or founded in the constitution that may not be a numerator, but through tradition and through others is Alito and others have said in the abortion decision recently and we've seen it in the writings of Neil Gorsuch, clarence Thomas and others. That are just they're there and they're protected as we go for. Now, they may be brought out of amendments, but they may be in the constitution actual wording yourself. And then you have rises the Tenth Amendment of the constitution says that any rise that are not given to the federal government or named in the constitution are then given to the states or the people. This is where we're seeing the interesting mix right now because you have it now a majority of the court that is constitutionalist or originalist in their intent. They frame everything about what the constitution said or did not say. And then you have the grouping on the court and the political opinion that says, no, the constitution is evolving, that you're supposed to use it as a measuring stick, but the measuring shit can be altered based on cases now and decisions of what's going on as we currently have it. This is what is formed the problem if you would are the crisis of many. And when you get decisions that have been handed out over the last few weeks, such as the Second Amendment decision out of New York, in which clarence Thomas actually declared that, you know, the Second Amendment could not be treated as a lesser right. What happened in the state of New York was is they had a may issue condition on a carry permit or an owner's permit for a gun in New York State. What the reality was that you had to show just calls. Well, the just calls as clarence Thomas and others agreed on the court was the just cause was you have the Second Amendment. The just call says that you can own a firearm for your protection as you can keep that farm and it's not up to the state to keep you from it for arbitrary reasons such as a just calls provision saying, well, do you really need it or not?

Neil Gorsuch Clarence Thomas Federal Government Alito New York New York State
What the Reactions to Clarence Thomas Post-Roe Reveal About White Libs

Mark Levin

01:37 min | 5 months ago

What the Reactions to Clarence Thomas Post-Roe Reveal About White Libs

"What the reactions to clarence Thomas post roe reveal about white liberals I said wait a minute where did this come from Columbia University Sociology department Which is like the sociology department you know the university of Beijing or the university of Moscow And they say here soon after the court handed down its decision in row that is the Dobbs case Some pro choice advocates began hurling outrageous and overtly racist remarks of the justice By Musa our carbide and Paul F Lars fell There were 6 Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn roe versus wade they said The majority opinion was authored by justice Sam Alito But in the aftermath of the ruling there has been an intense and particular focus on a different justice Clarence Thomas soon after the court handed down its decision some pro choice advocates began hurling outrageous and overtly racist remarks In Thomas's direction including liberal evocations of the N word on Twitter Often to the acclaim of some other left aligned whites

Clarence Thomas Post Roe Columbia University Sociology University Of Beijing University Of Moscow Paul F Lars Justice Sam Alito Dobbs Musa Wade Supreme Court Clarence Thomas Thomas Twitter
Steve Deace: Dems Inspire, Republicans Conspire Against Their Base

The Dan Bongino Show

01:10 min | 5 months ago

Steve Deace: Dems Inspire, Republicans Conspire Against Their Base

"It reminds me of my old adage that most Republicans on Capitol Hill are really Democrats but no Democrats are really Republicans Hold on a second I'm reading a press release stand from George W. Bush He finally got shame Alito for writing the opinion We did No he did not Oh yeah of course he didn't That's right We were waiting on that Jim was waiting with bated breath Bobby bonilla day came first and it still hasn't happened Yes you're right Here's the difference between the two parties on Capitol Hill There's two things I could say that are the real difference Democrats inspire their base to get what they want Republicans conspire against their base to get what they want Democrats don't even attempt to curtail their agenda at all To win elections Like they used to or gone are the days of Bill Clinton losing a midterm calling it sending Hillary out on a two year tour and bringing in dick Morris to save his presidency with triangulation Those days are gone It's devil in a red unitard with a pitchfork Just out in the open with it now And so they won't even curtail their agenda to win elections Meanwhile Republicans will seek to curtail and agenda they don't actually agree

Capitol Hill Bobby Bonilla Alito George W. Bush JIM Dick Morris Bill Clinton Hillary
Steve Deace: The Difference Between the Two Parties on Capitol Hill

The Dan Bongino Show

01:13 min | 5 months ago

Steve Deace: The Difference Between the Two Parties on Capitol Hill

"I mean it reminds me of my old adage that most Republicans on Capitol Hill are really Democrats but no Democrats are really Republicans Hold on a second I'm reading a press release stand from George W. Bush She finally got around thanking Samuel Alito for writing the opinion on it We did No he did not Oh yeah of course he didn't That's right We were waiting on that Jim was waiting with bated breath Bobby bonilla day came first and it still hasn't happened So yes you're right You know here's the difference between the two parties on Capitol Hill There's two things I could say that are the real difference Democrats inspire their base to get what they want Republicans conspire against their base to get what they want Democrats don't even try don't even attempt to curtail their agenda at all To win elections Like they used to or gone are the days of Bill Clinton losing a midterm calling it sending Hillary out in a two year tour and bringing a dick Morris to save his presidency with triangulation Those days are gone It's devil in a red unitard with a pitchfork Just out in the open with it now And so they won't even curtail their agenda to win elections Meanwhile Republicans will seek to curtail and agenda They don't actually agree with Their own base in order to win

Bobby Bonilla Samuel Alito Capitol Hill George W. Bush JIM Dick Morris Bill Clinton Hillary
'Created Equal' Author Mark Paoletta Reacts to SCOTUS Overturning Roe

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

01:31 min | 5 months ago

'Created Equal' Author Mark Paoletta Reacts to SCOTUS Overturning Roe

"But Mark talked to us about last week. As you said, sep, a great day for the constitution. I can't stop smiling, right? It's such a wonderful, such a wonderful thing that happened, right? And there's so many on so many levels. One of them being that the left through everything at these justice is in the most despicable way possible, right? And one of the I worked on justice Thomas's confirmation back in 1991, right? And I saw it when I reviewed his speeches in an article from his time as the EEOC. He'd been through the fire and he never wilted. He never bent, right? And so to see whether you never know how a justice is going to be until they're on the court in under fire. And it's such a great day that justice Barrett justice Gorsuch justice Kavanaugh, justice Alito, and justice Thomas, did not bend, right? And that's one of the most important things coming out of this opinion. Returning it to the states where it properly belongs. And then this intimidation. And you know, when you going back to the book and the movie, justice Thomas recognized, during those confirmation hearings, all the left cared about was this decision. This is what they were going to destroy him on. So the roe V wade was the neuralgic point for the left. 100% and he goes back to it over and over. He said, they didn't care what I did with my life. They didn't care about anything I had done. They wanted this issue, and they were going to destroy me to keep this issue.

Barrett Justice Gorsuch Justice Alito Eeoc Thomas Kavanaugh Mark Justice Thomas Roe V Wade
Clinton: Justice Thomas Is a Person of 'Resentment, Grievance, Anger'

ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes

01:23 min | 5 months ago

Clinton: Justice Thomas Is a Person of 'Resentment, Grievance, Anger'

"Justice clarence Thomas. The black Supreme Court Justice now, by the way, she's not upset at Sam Alito, who wrote the opinion, right? The white guy. No, no, no, no, no, no. She's upset with the black guy. Justice Thomas has sort of floated that out there about contraceptive rights. Contraception. And about same sex marriages. But other justices have pushed back to say, no, he's really sort of on his own with that. Well, he believes that? Well, he may be on his own, but he's signaling as he often did. I went to law school with him. He's been a person of grievance for as long as I've known him. Resentment, grievance, anger. And he has signaled in the past to lower courts to state legislatures, but find cases pass laws get them up. I may not win the first, the second or the third time, but we're going to keep at it. So you're saying people pay attention to the people he is speaking to, which is the right wing very conservative judges and justices and state legislatures. And the thing that is, well, there's so many things about it that are deeply distressing. But women are going to die, Gayle, women will die. Women will die. Well, only if they're connected to

Justice Thomas Black Supreme Court Sam Alito Gayle
The Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade and the Left Is Losing It

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:06 min | 5 months ago

The Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade and the Left Is Losing It

"And the left is losing their mind. This is my favorite. Let's go to cut one O three. ABC, they said, how dare the Supreme Court ignore any potential public reaction, play cut one O three? You know, it's interesting Terry because initially in this opinion that had been leaked justice Alito had written previously that we can not allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public's reaction to our work, talking about any reaction actually to that leak or what could happen if this ruling came down and it would seem in delivering the same opinion today that that's exactly what they've done here. They've ignored any potential public reaction to this. And just ignored what public reaction, what do they mean by that? I mean, their threats didn't work. Now, let's remember that the decision was leaked in a last ditch attempt to try to thwart this from happening. We still don't know who the leaker is inexcusably we don't know who the leaker is. I hope they were arrested and they survey healthy prison sentence. But it really goes to show how this is the new

Alito ABC Supreme Court Terry
Justice Alito: There Is No Constitutional Right to Abortion

The Dan Bongino Show

00:55 sec | 5 months ago

Justice Alito: There Is No Constitutional Right to Abortion

"Today in an opinion by justice Alito joined by four other members of the court it was concurred with by noted invertebrate justice Roberts who said well I wouldn't have overturned roe I would have just upheld this law He got rid of roe V wade got rid of case He said very flat out they are overruled There's no debate about that There is no constitutional right to abortion State legislatures here you go All on you This is a great day Now this is not the end of the abortion fight not by a long shot The battlefield has just changed The battlefield has changed from the federal courts where we argue about what an undue burden according to Casey On a woman's right to abortion is No no no Now it's back to the legislature back to the ballot box Where it belongs

Justice Alito Roe V Wade Roberts Casey Legislature
Kurt Schlichter: Every American Should Read the SCOTUS Decision

The Dan Bongino Show

01:14 min | 5 months ago

Kurt Schlichter: Every American Should Read the SCOTUS Decision

"Let's look at abortion and Alito Alito in his opinion in Dobbs takes this off of ages vivisect it It's actually

Alito Alito Dobbs
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:57 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Inducing drug and that can often sweep in some of what most people consider contraceptives So it would not surprise me if at least some states sweep in some forms of contraception in their abortion bans because I think unbeknownst to most Americans there's a live battle for some time about what abortion means not just whether it should be legal Does Alito's reason a name that other constitutional rights that to quote him are not deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition like gay marriage could be in jeopardy We've seen some signs of it in part Samuel Alito and clarence Thomas has already very publicly argued that the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage was wrongly decided The reasoning of the draft could easily apply to any of the court's jurisprudence on a substantive due process right to privacy including same sex marriage So I think it's a question of Juan do states do something that would give rise to a case and he does the court really want to take down the entirety of substantive due process Jurisprudence and I don't think the answer to that is yes today but I think if you're looking 5 or ten years down the road I imagine you get a different answer Finally you referred to this but do you think the 5 justices who allegedly voted for this knew the can of worms they were opening and how this would further divide an already divided country or did they just not care I think that they don't care is a fair reading at least of the draft the drafts more or less says they don't care So the draft essentially says our job is to interpret the law and if that destroys the country along the way that's really not our problem The irony of course is that one of the arguments the draft offers for undoing roe is that it polarized the debate and deepened the country's divide And so it's strange to say the least that the court seems disinterested in whether it's about to do that again in this decision Thanks Mary That's professor Mary ziegler of UC Davis law school Coming up next Trump's favorite attorney at least for now This is Bloomberg.

Samuel Alito Alito clarence Thomas Supreme Court Juan Mary ziegler UC Davis law school Trump Bloomberg
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:59 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Abortion inducing drug And that can often sweep in some of what most people consider contraceptives So it would not surprise me if at least some states sweep in some forms of contraception in their abortion bans because I think unbeknownst to most Americans there's a live battle for some time about what abortion means not just whether it should be legal Does Alito's reason a name that other constitutional rights that to quote him are not deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition like gay marriage could be in jeopardy We've seen some signs of it in part Samuel Alito and clarence Thomas has already very publicly argued that the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage was wrongly decided The reasoning of the draft could easily apply to any of the court's jurisprudence on a substantive due process right to privacy including same sex marriage So I think it's a question of one do states do something that would give rise to a case and two does the court really want to take down the entirety of substantive due process Here's prudence And I don't think the answer to that is yes today but I think if you're looking 5 or ten years down the road I imagine you get a different answer Finally you referred to this but do you think the 5 justices who allegedly voted for this knew the can of worms they were opening and how this would further divide an already divided country or did they just not care I think that they don't care as if they're reading at least if the grass more or less says they don't care So the draft essentially says our job is to interpret the law and if that destroys the country along the way that's really not our problem The irony of course is that one of the arguments the draft offers for undoing roe is that it polarized the debate and deepened the country's divide And so it's strange to say the least of the court seems disinterested in whether it's about to do that again in this decision Thanks Mary That's professor Mary ziegler of UC Davis law school Coming up next Trump's favorite attorney at least for now This is Bloomberg Cyber technology.

Samuel Alito Alito clarence Thomas Supreme Court Mary ziegler UC Davis law school Trump Bloomberg Cyber technology
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:58 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Is Bloomberg law with June gros from Bloomberg radio Keep abortion legal The stunning leak of the draft of justice Alito's opinion overturning roe V wade has led to demonstrations across the country a doomed attempt by Senate Democrats to establish a federal right to abortion fences being erected around the Supreme Court building and a lot of speculation about the Reaper cautions of ending the half century old right to abortion including from treasury secretary Janet Yellen who warned Congress that reversing row would have a negative effect on the economy I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades Roe V wade and access to reproductive healthcare including abortion helped lead to increased labor force participation It enabled many women to finish school that increased their earning potential My guest is Mary ziegler a professor at UC Davis law school This draft decision leaves abortion to the states and that would mean a patchwork of abortion laws across the country Tell us about the range of restrictions we could see on abortion So I mean we don't even entirely know the full range of constraints because states are still hashing out exactly what they mean by abortion in terms of whether that's going to sweep in other pregnancy adjacent things like IUDs or the morning after pill the governor of Mississippi was on CNN just the other day and was not willing to answer a question about whether those would be included in abortion bans or Reno sets and infertility treatment like in vitro fertilization and they're trying to figure out how they're actually going to enforce these laws but we do know that somewhere in the ballpark of half the states are going to criminalize virtually all abortions within a very short period of time after rogue comes down And then it's just a matter of what exactly that means on the ground The next battleground well there are a few battlegrounds So let's say one of the next battlegrounds is states trying to stop their residents from traveling across state lines to terminate a pregnancy Can states enforce their laws beyond their borders The answer is we don't know So the extra territorial application of these laws is something that hasn't or even really any law Is this something that hasn't been dealt with a lot in recent history We have one case that isn't really directly on point from the row era And then to look back further you really have to go to the days of kind of fugitive slave disputes to really get into this kind of interstate war So I don't know Is the answer And so that's one of the reasons you see blue states anticipating these struggles and passing laws like the one in Connecticut essentially think we're not going to comply with these requests But how those disputes will be resolved whether what the red state would be doing would be constitutional is unclear which states law would apply in those circumstances is unclear and the great irony of it all of course is that if that's contested it's going to end right back up in the Supreme Court which in this draft is telling us that things are going to become much more peaceful When the court gets out of the abortion business and this goes back to the states Practically I'm wondering how they would enforce it unless they had a law like Texas's which makes every citizen and enforcer or a bounty hunter Yeah there are lots of different possibilities I think one possibility is sort of digital surveillance There are potential ways people can get caught law enforcement can buy your search data They can control your social media There may be programs along those lines There are likely going to be people who are found out when they seek treatment for medical complications which is terrible because it's going to disincentivize people from seeking treatment for medical complications including for conditions that aren't abortion like miscarriages And then I think finally people are likely to be caught the same way people are caught for using marijuana which is to say people in the most highly police communities will be more likely to be found out It's just simply because they're having more interactions with law enforcement which I think would most likely be unsurprisingly right people of color low income people people who are already disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system Another next battleground is medication abortion or abortion pills which account for more than half of recent abortions Is this the most workable option in the future for getting an abortion It may well be medication abortion obviously isn't applicable throughout pregnancy at the moment the FDA only authorizes it for the first ten weeks but it is becoming the preferred method and it is relatively hard to trace It is something that people can get in state sort of worship is illegal from organizations like aid access that operate internationally but I think in a posterior world no abortion method will be really free of potential consequences for people seeking it unfortunately What other areas do you think are going to be battlegrounds or litigated coming up Questions about how broadly the state defines abortion and whether those broad definitions create any constitutional questions For example if a state bans in vitro fertilization or if a state bans IUDs does that raise constitutional questions I think there'll be questions as you mentioned about out of state travel And I think finally there'll be questions about whether there will be a nationwide ban on abortion something that we've seen congressional Republicans float and something also that anti abortion groups are asking the Supreme Court to do down the road by essentially recognizing the person photo the fetus or unborn child Does it seem clear to you that contraception is another target ahead Potentially because within the anti worst movement there are very different definitions of what counts as an.

June gros justice Alito roe V wade Janet Yellen Bloomberg Mary ziegler UC Davis law school Supreme Court Roe treasury Senate Reno CNN Congress Mississippi Connecticut Texas FDA
"alito" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

06:09 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Be heard call 8 four four four the USA now to let Dan know what you think 844-484-3872 the Dan bongino show We're here it is I've been talking about it the entire show here are Samuel Alito justice Samuel Alito's actual words With the Dobbs decision that impacts roe V wade and abortion that was leaked out Here is actual words No one is denying the authenticity of a chief justice John Roberts has already confirmed the document is in fact authentic For all of you out there on the left spreading sewage like disinformation like our disinformation Nina jankovic an expert at spreading raw sewage all over the field of information and Joe Biden a noted discredited plagiarist liar corrupt the crap Why don't you try telling the truth just for once I know it's a novelty for you but just give it a shot You may like it Here is words They're in The Wall Street Journal today Justice Alito's originalist triumph It's an opinion piece by David garrow It says quote this is from the actual opinion For those of you believe it's going to lead to a Jim Crow two and segregated lunch counters or any other ridiculous absurdities you want to spew Quote nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion Justice Alito insists Dobbs does not undermine them in any way Did you actually read it You know being stupid can be a profession Believe me liberals have made a good bit of money doing it Just ask the cat lady I mean it's a profession for them This is what they do Ignorance is that they rely on ignorance But this is just obvious You can legitimately just go to your phone or computer put in any search engine doesn't even matter which one leak Alito Dobbs decision and you can read the words for yourself The authenticity of it is already been confirmed Where a clearly says again nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast out unprecedented do not concern abortion And yet you still go out you still go out and you tell people that segregation is coming back into racial marriage is going away LGBTQ kids are going to be segregated in classrooms And yes I'm sorry Jim It's going to be you're not going to be allowed to visit grandma I live in Florida There's going to be a national police force set up at the Florida George Florida Georgia line like the ban That's going to mean a new thing in the future right I got to move on 'cause I can't I'm getting dumber talking about liberals I really am I'm getting dumber every single day talking about these morons on the left I can't take it I gave it really is it makes you dumber to all you've got to do is read the documents Here's another guy who melted down on the left and very serious note I had been very concerned about the safety of the Supreme Court Justices It was my entire line of work for ten years plus was executive protection I get concerned about this stuff It's a very serious topic It grows even more serious by the day because you have crazy people like this on Twitter This guy Simon Gwynn Now he's since recanted on this but this is what he put out to Twitter and it went viral for all the wrong reasons He said interesting real-life trolley problem in America right now If you had the chance to kill clarence Thomas and Sam Alito that you owe this right wing Supreme Court Justices a justice issue should you do it while Biden can get his nominees to replacing to replace them and confirm It's interesting it's an abstract question but it comes a real becomes a real conundrum if say you're terminally ill and you have little to lose yourself but you know that it could save many women's lives in the future Folks if that was a conservative calling for that there'd be an FBI investing I'm not kidding There would be an FBI investigation right now Every single person who contacted this dreadful human being would be under investigation and you'd likely find yourself under an investigation but it wouldn't be the Secret Service because they don't investigate the it would probably be someone from the Department of Justice You wonder why I'm concerned about their security Because the emotions surrounding this issue is like nothing you've ever seen if you've ever dealt in a debate with leftists on abortion I'm telling you the idea of systematically wiping out children in the womb is a sacrament to them Why they are so in love with the idea of killing children in the womb is only explainable by the existence of pure evil There is no other explanation And it's why crazy people when you bring up the topic and you attempt to have a rational conversation about this it's why they lose their mind They are perfect example Did you see this yesterday on the 5 Geraldo Cue up for me cut 8 Geraldo was on the 5 yesterday and Greg gutfeld who has been doing a great job advocating for the ability of children to be allowed to live Geraldo and agree And of course whenever you bring this topic up you left these like Geraldo they'd lose their marbles Here's Geraldo melting down my name is invoked in this of course because of my history but Geraldo but melting down and going the punk route again He loves to use that word punk I don't get it I find that inverse relationship The more people talk junk the less tough they are The toughest guys I've ever met in my life talk the least amount of junk But here check this out Anywhere on social media it's something to celebrate to cherish right The unfortunate That's baloney So why are hangar stuck up.

Justice Alito Dan bongino roe V wade Nina jankovic Dobbs David garrow Alito Dobbs John Roberts Florida Joe Biden Simon Gwynn Jim Crow USA Geraldo The Wall Street Journal Dan Supreme Court Twitter FBI clarence Thomas
"alito" Discussed on Today, Explained

Today, Explained

02:09 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on Today, Explained

"I think that there's a tendency to point to the last election, the last justice to retire or die. The last legislative session. This is actually something that has been the wheels on this have been turning for generations. This is a goal that the conservative legal movement has single mindedly pursued and they have at times they have lost. They've lost many times, even if they've been able to chip away at abortion rights, but they've been laser focused on sort of picking themselves back up and doing it. And what their goal is is to make abortion illegal everywhere. And so as shocking as it is, as enormous of a change in people's lives as this would be, they've been pretty open, that this is what they want to do for a really long time. And there are certainly things that accelerated us to this point, but it's really been a long time coming. And tomorrow's show, you're going to hear much more about the decades long crusade to undo roe versus wade. In fact, Noel king will interview one of the leaders of that crusade. You can read a rin carmone in New York magazine or at NY mag dot com are show today was produced by miles Brian and hottie mogg di, fact checked by Laura bullard and Tori Dominguez, engineered by Paul manzi and edited by Matthew collette and me, I'm Sean ramus from..

Noel king miles Brian wade hottie mogg di New York magazine Laura bullard Tori Dominguez Paul manzi Matthew collette Sean ramus
"alito" Discussed on Today, Explained

Today, Explained

08:30 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on Today, Explained

"What do you think about when you hear the word philosophy? Maybe nothing at all, which is totally fine. Or maybe it makes you think of a stuffy seminar room, or marble bust of dead Greek guys. Or giant books, written a long time ago, with little to say about your life. But philosophy is meant to be accessible to everyone. At its best, it speaks to issues we all face every day in the here and now. Vox conversations has a new monthly series called the philosophers. Each episode focuses on the ideas of a philosopher or school of thought from the past, and explains why they still matter today. I talk with some really smart professors, but this is not a college course. We're talking about things that are relevant and vital and we're interested in ideas that crystallize the world around us. Check out our episode on how Albert Camus can help us understand the war in Ukraine. Or our newest episode on how Hannah arendt describes the political dangers of loneliness. Listen to the philosophers with me, Sean hailing, every month, right in the vox conversations feed. We're back, today explained with orin carmone, senior correspondent at New York magazine, Erin, if this opinion drops in a few weeks, in the same shape, the draft was in. What would happen next? So about half of U.S. states already have laws on the books. Either old laws or they've passed so called trigger laws that are waiting for this exact moment that would make abortion either entirely legal or mostly illegal. What states are we talking about? So Texas, for example, the Supreme Court allowed it to ban abortion at 6 weeks, which was certainly a preview of where we are in this draft opinion. You've seen actually Texans moving heaven and earth and a substantial number of people being able to get abortions before 6 weeks, which is a testament to just the efforts that the clinics are doing to get them in, and many people going to other states like Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama. New Mexico, Colorado. So take Texas. They have a trigger ban on the books that says that if roe V wade is overturned, all abortions are illegal. So no longer would every individual who's been able to go before 6 weeks be able to go. And of all the states that I just named that have been, again, with great difficulty able to accept Texas abortion patients, Oklahoma just passed a law. I believe it's about to be signed by the governor, banning abortion at 6 weeks, but they could also just ban abortion wholesale. The Louisiana definitely another trigger state. Alabama. So in that entire region of the country, that basically leaves New Mexico and most likely Colorado were abortion would still be legal. As a Texan, if you could get an abortion fund to help you get on a plane, that might end up being your best bet. Anyone who's been paying attention to the news for the past year is aware that there have already been these extremely severe conservative restrictions placed on abortion throughout the south. How different is this trigger ban reality from the one that we're in right now? Well, I think for folks living in those states, it's already been incredibly difficult to access abortion. They are barred from using their Medicaid coverage. They are forced to jump through hoops like 72 hour waiting periods, multiple visits, they are forced to listen to inaccurate information, clinics have been closed down based on spurious regulations. But I think that if this opinion holds, we are about to see that it could always get worse. You know, I mentioned in Texas 6 week abortion ban has been in place, well, in a 100% abortion ban is going to impact those patients a lot more. Even though some people don't know that they're pregnant before 6 weeks, many people have still been able to get the abortion that they need before 6 weeks. A surprising number, I think. And so you're also going to see clinic capacity in states where abortion is going to remain legal. Be stretched. And so New Mexico is a place where a lot of people go, but it's mostly one clinic. You're going to see an expansion of telemedicine, but many of these hostile states have already made telemedicine abortion illegal. So you're also going to see something that researchers have found is happening in places like Texas already, which is that nonprofit organizations, including ones based overseas that are willing to push the boundaries of the law, are doing telemedicine sessions with abortion patients and mailing them pills. Now, this is medically very safe, as long as you have access to accurate information and the right medication. But legally, we've already seen folks being prosecuted for taking matters into their own hands. Again, it's safer than ever to quote self manage your abortion. The days of coat hangers do not need to be with us, but prosecutors who have already found out about this with abortion being legal have gone after people for ending their pregnancies with pills. So I think we're about to end up in a territory where the choice will be get on a plane if that's available to you, which we know is going to be really difficult for the most marginalized people. Drive many, many, many hours if you can even get an appointment, take matters into your own hands, which not everyone is going to be comfortable with, and it's not going to be medically indicated. Or be forced to remain pregnant against your will. Not long after Politico published this leaked opinion last night. People like senator Bernie Sanders said, you know, now is the time to pass legislation. And if we can't get 60 votes, we should end the filibuster and do it with 50. How plausible is any legislation in this moment? Well, in the current Congress, Joe Manchin has already made it clear that he doesn't support what's known as the women's health protection act, which would be the legislative solution to row falling. So there's already a math problem there. I mean, that was already brought to a vote. So Bernie's saying, let's do it with 50 votes, but they don't have 50 votes. They don't have 50 votes unless somehow Susan Collins, or at least some Murkowski decides to cross the aisle. So not only would there have to be a consensus to end the filibuster, they would also need more votes than they currently have. And then a legislative solution would also potentially end up in the Supreme Court. You know, and so for all Alito was saying now that this is something that should be left to the people's representatives, see what happens if the Supreme Court gets a nationwide abortion law that doesn't let Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. Ban abortion. How will those 6 three Supreme Court rule on that? We may not even get to that point, but that's an open question. So you're saying this isn't necessarily the end of abortion in the Supreme Court of the United States. Absolutely not. Some of the reporting that I'm doing now is about attempts in red states, not only to make abortion illegal within their borders, but to try to police with their residents do when they leave the state. So you had Connecticut this week passed legislation that seeks to protect their providers from lawsuits that might come from other states because there is already this movement to say it's not enough that I'm going to make abortion illegal within my borders. I'm going to try to prevent any, for example, this was a state in which it was proposed. Anybody from Missouri from leaving to the extent that you could enforce it to go to a state where abortion is legal. And that's a pretty terrifying frontier because it's already really, really, really hard to leave the state that you live in for a medical procedure. That should be very quick and simple and that is just a matter of changing your life. It's certainly much more life-changing to have a child. But to then the sort of next frontier that the Supreme Court may well be asked to consider if things move as they're looking right now would be, can they try to stop people from leaving their states and going to a more friendly territory for an abortion? And that's a pretty scary prospect..

Texas orin carmone New Mexico roe V wade Louisiana Oklahoma Supreme Court Hannah arendt Albert Camus Alabama Colorado New York magazine Ukraine Erin Sean senator Bernie Sanders United States Joe Manchin Politico
"alito" Discussed on Today, Explained

Today, Explained

12:02 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on Today, Explained

"Of roe V wade, there's going to be a lot that's familiar here. It's pretty much every mainstream conservative by which I mean it's a pretty extreme catalog of critiques of roe V wade. Before we get into the arguments in this draft opinion, can we just dial it back and talk about where this case even came from? What is the case Alito wrote this draft opinion for? For decades, conservatives in state legislatures have been passing laws that are kind of teeing up challenges to roe V wade. Testing how far the court is ready to go. So this particular law came out of Mississippi. It banned abortion at 15 weeks, which is later than some of the laws that the court has considered in this very term. But was set up, I think, to try to chip away at the viability standard, which is what roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood versus Casey have said that you can not ban abortion before fetal viability, which is this sort of somewhat arbitrary line which a fetus could hypothetically survive. And so all the attempts to get rid of the fetal liability line have been unsuccessful the court has not even agreed to hear them until this term. Probably because Trump was able to appoint three Supreme Court Justices. And when justice Ginsburg died and was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, Mississippi actually rewrote its questions that it asked the court to hear. It had previously asked the court to consider just whether a 15 week line is reasonable. And in the sort of later stage it filed a brief saying, our roe V wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, these precedents that have kept states from banning abortion, are they constitutional should they be overruled? So this went from being a case that would chip away further at roe V wade to a case that had the potential to overturn it. That's exactly right. And in oral argument in December, justice Breyer actually called out Mississippi for doing this. And it is particularly important to show what we do. In overturning a case, is grounded in principle. And not social pressure, not political pressure. Only, quote, the most convincing justification can show that a later decision overruling, if that's what we did. Was anything but a surrender to political pressures or new members? But once they realized that they had a stronger conservative presence on the court, again, not just Anthony Kennedy who had repeatedly declined to overturn roe being replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, but then justice Ginsburg being replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, it strengthened the sense that they could at least get to 5. And maybe even 6. Did people watching the court expect this possibility that this could be the case that finally overturns roe V wade after almost 50 years? There was nothing extraordinary about this Mississippi law. What was extraordinary is that the court agreed to take it. So once the court said, we're going to reconsider something that we've repeatedly said. You can not do. The mere decision to take that, although it only takes four justices to take up a case, usually they won't take up a case they think they're going to lose because they don't want to strengthen the existing precedent that says abortion is legal. Once the court says, this is up for grabs. Anybody who's paying attention can say something substantial is about to change here. And indeed, when the oral argument was heard in December, you could go back and read the summaries of it now and just see exactly what we read in the draft opinion, which is that 5 justices were openly hostile, not just to this idea of whether abortion should be legal at 15 weeks or not, but to the very underpinnings that for 49 years have governed American law. If you think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this court's history, there's a string of them where the case is overruled, precedent, Brown V board, outlawed separate but equal. And then you have John Roberts trying to theoretically find the middle line but that would also involve throwing out row without saying the words we're overturning roe. I'd like to focus on the 15 week ban because that's not a dramatic departure from viability. It is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. When you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the People's Republic of China and North Korea. Let's get a little more specific about what exactly justice Alito writes in this draft opinion. Sure. So in his draft, Alito says that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, he says, and this is a quote a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. So that's a sort of fallback that if the word abortion is not in the constitution, there's a sort of originalist argument saying it's not whether it's deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. He also says that due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment are not legitimate. Now these are the same arguments, the due process arguments. It's called substantive due process, have been used to underpin decisions involving striking down sodomy laws. The right for couples and single people to use contraception, the right to marry, but he says, don't worry, those opinions are totally safe because abortions fundamentally different. He says it destroys with those decisions called fetal life, what the law before us now describes as an unborn human being. So he says it's different because of the separate status of the fetus, which we are now kind of swinging the pendulum towards valuing the status of the fetus over that of the pregnant person, although he would never use that phrase. Why is he telling people not to worry about gay marriage or anti sodomy laws? Because they are right to worry about them. I mean, of course, just because he says, don't worry. It doesn't really mean anything. Because these are all cases that come from the same legal reasoning, the same precedence building on each other. They write to privacy right to liberty to some extent equality, so these are ones also that the conservative movement, I mean, Alito descent, for example, so did John Roberts in obergefell, the decision that made same sex marriage legal throughout the land. So if people would be right to worry about them, Alito also wrote the opinion and hobby lobby, which tacitly accepted that contraceptive forms used by millions of people are quote unquote aboard a patient despite any evidence showing that. The other thing that a leader does in this draft opinion is he responds to claims that you should not overturn roe because of stare decisis because of the principle that the court should move very, very slowly and try not to upend existing precedent because people rely on it in the law relies on it and it's just there's all sorts of reasons why the court has developed that you should not overturn major precedents. But he says that precedent does not compel unending adherence to rose abuse of judicial authority. So basically he says that from the beginning, the court should not have made this decision, this should return to the people's elected representatives. So he would like to basically put up people's individual reproductive decision making to a vote of the majority. He's saying this should be something that is legislated by Congress, not decided by the Supreme Court. By Congress or by individual states. He also says roe V wade only further deepened divisions in this country. It didn't solve anything. Yes. And to do so, he also relies on some of the critiques from the early 1980s that were developed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a law professor first and then as a judge on the D.C. circuit and to my mind as the author of a Ginsburg biography, it's kind of a troll. It's saying, look, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't like ro. But she didn't like roe because she thought that it needed to have equality reasoning. She thought that the government needed to fund abortions. She thought it didn't go far enough. And she didn't like the way it was written. And so it's a bad faith argument, but another way in which the Supreme Court has justified its decisions is to say, this is a contentious issue, but we need to hand down some kind of stable settlement for the country. And he says, it never did that because many people still oppose abortion. How many justices did Alito get to sign on to this draft opinion? We don't exactly know the answer to that. So Politico reported that it's unclear what chief justice John Roberts is doing or saying. There's some conflicting reports out there about this. He has the ability to either assign the opinion to himself if he's in the majority. Or to somebody else. But if he's in the minority, the next most senior member of the conservatives, in this case, it would have been the conservatives. And in almost every consequential case, clarence Thomas, actually, justice Thomas would have been the one to assign it. Now, justice Thomas has written many times about thinking that not only is row unconstitutional, but the entire framework of substantive due process needs to be thrown out. It doesn't exist in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's his opinion. So he may have not been able to keep a majority together with his own opinions. But it appears that what happened is that there's a majority which, again, on a court of 9, you need 5 justices, and that at some point, alita was assigned to write a majority opinion. Now, in the circulating of drafts, which is apparently what we are seeing, it has been known for justices to change their minds. So sometimes when an actual opinion is written and then a dissent is written, and this is really rare, but justices have talked about how, in the writing, in the arguments, there's a sort of intellectual or legal or political I would say haggling where they say, well, I would sign on to your opinion if X, Y, and Z or maybe, and this is, again, incredibly rare. Somebody reads a descent and says, actually, I'm so persuaded by the dissent that I'm going to change my vote. Now, about a week before this leaked, The Wall Street Journal editorial board, which is very plugged in. It has written before accurately about what chief justice John Roberts is thinking and trying to kind of keep him into the conservative fold. They said they claimed that justice Roberts was trying to write a sort of separate opinion that would peel off one of the conservatives. So if they indeed have 5 for Alito's opinion, they would just one person could fold or one person could join a slightly less extreme opinion in John Roberts direction. And even if they all agreed that the Mississippi law could be upheld, maybe the ultimate opinion would be less sweeping. Got it. So, what we know at this point is that someone at the Supreme Court leaked this draft opinion authored by justice Alito to Politico, but this is by no means the final word.

roe V wade Alito Amy Coney Barrett Mississippi Ginsburg chief justice John Roberts justice Breyer Brett Kavanaugh Casey Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy roe Trump Ruth Bader Ginsburg justice Thomas Republic of China North Korea Congress Brown
"alito" Discussed on Today, Explained

Today, Explained

02:10 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on Today, Explained

"Last night, around 9 p.m. outside the Supreme Court of the United States sounded kind of like this. But by 11 p.m., it sounded more like this. But the curious thing is, the Supreme Court hadn't issued a controversial opinion. Instead, a historic one had leaked. On today explained, we're going to explore justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion that would overturn roe V wade and find out what this might mean for reproductive rights in the United States. Support for the show today comes from future, you know, the guy with the song about the masks on or the mask off no, I'm sorry, sorry, I'm getting no, I'm getting a message here. Future is the app shaking up how people think about exercise and self motivation. It might be by pairing you with your own personal fitness coach, future holds you accountable and helps you work towards your goals with the support of an expert, get started right now with 50% off your first three months at try future dot com slash explained. Again, that is try future dot com slash explained again not the rapper future, the app, the apper future. Goodbye. Decoder.

Supreme Court roe V wade Samuel Alito United States
"alito" Discussed on POLITICO Playbook Audio Briefing

POLITICO Playbook Audio Briefing

05:25 min | 7 months ago

"alito" Discussed on POLITICO Playbook Audio Briefing

"Presented by Amazon. Good morning, playbook or some good one of all and it's Tuesday. Maybe not a surprise spinola shocking. What's next after just a Samuel Alito's February draft opinion on roe. It's your Politico playbook daily briefing. We hold that row and Casey must be overruled. The constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. Thus begins just as similar leaders February draft opinion that would end the constitutional right to abortion in America, obtained exclusively by Politico's Josh gerstein and Alexander ward. Here's the thing we knew this was coming ever since last December's oral arguments in the Mississippi abortion case, it seemed likely there was a majority on the court to overrule Roman Casey, but while not a surprise, it was still shocking to see Alito's words in black and white. The culmination of a half a century of legal conservatives organizing around the idea that roe was wrongly decided and needed to be reversed in his opinion, Alito anticipated a fierce political backlash coming and offered a preemptive response. Quote, we can not allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences, such as concern about the public's reaction to our work. Senator Bernie Sanders was one of the first out of the gate with the demand that Democrats in Congress use their majority to codify roe into law. He wrote, quote, and if there aren't 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes. The only problem with that, there may not be 50 votes for it in the Senate. By way of Politico's burges Everett quote, there really is no scenario where the 50 50 Senate gets rid of the filibuster for abortion legislation this year, mentioned his anti abortion rights and Collins and Murkowski would invoke to change to Senate rules under a democratic majority. Speaking of senator Collins, the Supreme Court seems poised to do what Collins assured her abortion rights supporting me constituents that it would never do when she voted to confirm Kavanaugh. Here's a quote from a conversation she had back in 2018 with the reporter. The question why do you think Kavanaugh would not repeal or overturn roe V wade? Collins answer quote because he's agreed that the concept of precedent is rooted in article three of the constitution, and he clearly reveres our constitution. He also believes that it is not sufficient since I asked him to directly provide sitting judges to believe that an earlier decision was incorrectly decided. He said it would have to be grievously wrong and deeply inconsistent. Finally, he also pointed to the age of the president, roh was decided in 1973, and it was reaffirmed 26 years ago and Planned Parenthood versus Casey. So there's been a reliance on road for 45 years, and he says that that matters reliant matters. In his 98 page draft opinion, leda blasted through each of those arguments abrupt precedent. Quote, the doctrine on which Casey's controlling opinion was based does not compel an ending adherence to rose abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start, just as Kavanaugh apparently agrees with him. The Senate is in session, so expect Collins to be chased around by reporters all week. Questioning her judgment about what Kavanaugh would do on rope and whether it could change your view of going nuclear on the filibuster. There's a question. Is this only about roe? Since December's oral arguments rose defenders have said that the legal logic behind this means wing row could easily apply to other Supreme Court opinions that rest on protecting quote fundamental rights that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution and specifically opinions more recent than Casey dealing with same sex marriage, anti sodomy laws, and civil rights. Leda takes paints to knock down the idea, but the end of rogue could be a dominant toppling these other decisions. Quote, to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood, or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt and precedence that do not concern abortion. That, of course, is how this rarely works. Successful legal arguments get borrowed and expanded and the opinion writers buried disclaimer gets forgotten, politically, this will be a potent rallying cry for Democrats. It won't end with abortion. Next, they'll come from contraception and gay marriage. This will tip in Washington today starting with The White House, at ten 30 a.m. eastern, president Joe Biden will leave The White House from Montgomery, Alabama, arriving at 1155 a.m.. At one time, Biden will visit a Lockheed Martin facility that makes javelin anti tank missiles and other weapon systems in Alabama, where he'll speak about military E to Ukraine at 2 p.m.. At four 15, Biden will leave Montgomery, arriving back at The White House at 7 35. Here's what's on the face president's calendar, vice president Kamala Harris will deliver remarks at the 30th annual we are Emily national conference in gala. Press secretary Jen Psaki will gaggle on Air Force One on the way to Alabama. The Senate will meet at 10 a.m. with the recess at 1230 for weekly conference meetings. Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg will testify before the commerce committee at 10 a.m.. The house is out today and one last thing today voters in the Buckeye state will go to the polls in 2020 twos first major test of Trump's hold on the GOP primary electorate. You can catch a preview of Ohio's primary in today's playbook. All right, for more news, what's breaking in D.C. right now, subscribe to the playbook newsletter. That's at Politico dot com slash playbook. Our music is composed by the mysterious breakmaster cylinder. Just gonna let you know I am dealing with a bit of a cold today, so I apologize if I sounded a bit muffled. I'm ragu naval and have a good Tuesday. We'll see you first thing tomorrow morning..

Kavanaugh Senate Collins Casey spinola Alito Josh gerstein Alexander ward Roman Casey roe Politico Senator Bernie Sanders burges Everett senator Collins roe V wade Samuel Alito Supreme Court Murkowski Amazon Mississippi
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:40 min | 1 year ago

"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"The court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit No power And the judges would be violating their oath to go ahead and say anything about the other arguments in the case What did you think about justice Alito's descent He called it the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy So I just think it shows how contentious the issue is on the court I think it also sort of betrays the justice Alito isn't really viewing this as a law issue that this is for some of the justices the kind of policy issue that you might hear debated and argued about on the cable news shows and that it plays on that level with the justices And I certainly think just as Alito's descending opinion read that way it reads like it's written for that kind of an audience rather than your standard Supreme Court opinion audience Is the cloud over ObamaCare gone now Are the legal challenges behind us Well it's hard for me to say their entirely behind us just because there is so much interest in it and therefore there is so much money available for lawyers and groups that want to challenge it So it's possible we'll hear more of it I would say that I think this is the Supreme Court telling people we really don't want to hear about this anymore Go away Thanks for being on the show Neil That's Neil king cough a Professor of constitutional law at the Georgia state university college of law Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show Apple risks losing billions of dollars after the Epic Games ruling or does it I'm joon grosso and you're.

Alito Supreme Court Neil king Georgia state university colle Neil Apple joon grosso
"alito" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:37 min | 1 year ago

"alito" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"Important. Let's start with justice Alito. Asking the director for the center for reproductive health about viability. Play cut 51. Viability is a principled line, your honor, because in ordering the uncharted to see whether it is a principle line. Yeah, you agree with me at least on that point. That a woman still has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed. Yes, your honor, but the court balanced the interests and in ordering the interest of the state on the other side. The fetus has an interest in having a life. And that doesn't change, does it from the point before viability to the point after viability? In some people's view, it doesn't, your honor, but what the court said is that those philosophical differences couldn't be resolved. That's what I'm getting at. What is the philosophical argument? The secular philosophical argument for saying, this is the appropriate line. They can't answer that question. That's justice Alito in the head of the center for reproductive health. Now this is the best argument they got. Sotomayor says that a fetus is not a person just because it can feel pain. She says evidence of fetal pain is not proof of life, says fully grown and developed Sotomayor. Play cut 50 where she says a fetus is just responding to painful stimuli is the equivalent of a clinically brain dead person having a reflex response to painful stimuli. Hey, guess what son of a clinically brain dead people have constitutional rights too?

Jussie Smollett center for reproductive health Sotomayor Ghislaine Maxwell Jussie Jesse Smollett America justice Alito Alito un Supreme Court Chicago
"alito" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

WIBC 93.1FM

07:44 min | 1 year ago

"alito" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

"If the state of California regulators were able to scoop up information on made your donors for every entity that does every tax exempt entity that does business in California, which is almost everybody, and so basically the chilling effect this would have it was brought by a conservative group, but it actually crossed party lines ideological lines. Lot of left wing groups didn't like this California policy either. And so the Supreme Court struck it down. Now this policy would have applied to whomever a donor. Maybe. But it was taken to the idea that since this is a state so heavily run by Democrats that the Democratic Party would be using this to see who donates to conservative causes, and then possibly the state would be utilized as a cudgel as a bit of retribution against those people, But this could have gone. Either way. So what was the argument of the state? You know, in wanting this to happen? The state's argument was that they had a legitimate law enforcement and regulatory need for this information to prevent fraud in charities. But the Supreme Court and this came out in oral argument also basically eviscerated that said, You almost never used this information as part of an investigation. It's just the names of donors. That's well, that's all they're getting, and you're going to collected on several 1000 entities. For something you almost never used. And if there is a real investigation, then you can obtain this information. But on a key thing here was that it routinely had to be filed with the state of California. I think the number was 8000 different entities a year and the opportunity for things to be leaked out. Whether deliberately or not deliberately was so great that a lot of people didn't want to donate to conservative causes because they were afraid if it was leaked out by somebody in the bureaucracy in California, that all of a sudden they'd have protesters at their doorstep of their business, or they'd be cancelled in some way, And so it really did. And I do believe this had a chilling effect. On donors ability to donate. Remember, these were only made your donors. Um, if you donated $50, you would not be disclosed on the form 9 90. That's the I R s form anyway, you had to. I think it's $5000 or A certain percentage of the entities revenue. So this was for larger donors, but nonetheless, it had a killing effect. Talking to William Jacobson, Cornell Law professor. The mind behind legal insurrection dot com. This brings us to the bigger one where the Supreme Court upholds Arizona ballot harvesting restrictions. That's how you wrote in a 63 ruling. The opinion by Samuel Alito. This was all about the Arizona Attorney General Mark Burnett, Bitch and his support of this legislation. What did the Arizona law say? How do you know we can talk about ballot harvesting and and is worthy of definition? And what was the argument that Alito made to this not being in violation of the Voting Rights Act? Well, the what the law did is severely restricted. Who could turn in a ballot for somebody else? And so it basically eliminated all non family members. I'm not sure how much more limited it was. But you could not have the short of operation that ran in the last election cycle and has run another election cycles where you have activists paid activists running around to nursing homes, collecting ballots from people and, of course You don't know if there's pressure reply. You don't know whether they all get turned in. If somebody suspects that the Republican vote because they see the person fill out the form, and they might just tossed the ballot. Also, I mean, that's where a lot of concerns about fraud coming, so this essentially put a stop to that practice, and the argument was From the other side that this would somehow desperately impact non white or minority communities, and therefore it was at a racial motivation and therefore violated the Voting Rights Act because it was was meant to suppress, you know, minority votes, and basically, one of the hero said is one. It doesn't do that on its face and two there's no evidence. That this was racially motivated or would have any to spring impact. And so they, you know, basically said it was a legitimate anti fraud measure that a state can adopt. Now. One of the people who was who voted against this was was Elena Kagan, Justice Kagan. I always find her to be a little more interesting. Let's say a son Sotomayor, because I have never accepted the most rarest instances when they go nine. Nothing. I rarely find Justice Sotomayor to engage in adjudication. Rather, I see her somebody who votes Elena Kagan. I think, actually, even though I may disagree with her on a great number of things actually spends time. It seems to me, um, looking at the merits of the case and one of the things that she stated here and that she descends that this is really chipping away at the pillars of the Voting Rights Act that argument that to allow to not allow ballot harvesting. And to allow states to say, Hey, we've got rules and regulations about voting to ensure as little fraud as possible. And they put this in this category of somehow being bigoted. Is there anything that You see from this type of legislation from the state like Arizona or a state like Georgia or state like Delaware, that nobody is willing to talk about that chips away at the rights of the people, regardless of the color of their skin to vote. No all of these arguments that it's racist or violates the voting Right back Rights Act start from a actually bigoted assumption. The assumption being that you know, non whites have more trouble forgetting it, and I'd non whites have more trouble turning in their ballots. I mean all of the stereotypes negative stereotypes. Our advanced by the people who claim to want to protect those communities, and there's just no evidence of that. There's no evidence of that. And so every eight a facially neutral Restriction on ballot harvesting. It doesn't say you can harvest them, but not in cities. Okay? If you did that, you could say, Well, maybe cities have a higher percentage of minorities, and therefore there's some, you know, biased there or intent there, But this applies everywhere that you, you know, and really what it's meant to do is to do away. With the worst abuses. Now the Democrats don't like it. But for reasons having nothing to do with race, the Democrats have very highly organized ballot harvesting operations in any place that it's Legal, and they also have things that are close to ballot harvesting in places where ballot harvesting is is not legal, So this is that this is just politics here. I mean, you know, Democrats think it's going to hurt their get out the vote, but not but that doesn't make it racist..

Samuel Alito William Jacobson Elena Kagan Alito $50 $5000 Democratic Party Voting Rights Act Sotomayor nine Republican Supreme Court 9 90 Democrats Delaware Right back Rights Act Georgia California Arizona one