35 Burst results for "Alito"
The Dan Bongino Show
The Left Hates Clarence Thomas Because He's Black
"Having that, said thank you very much. I want to leave that out. You know, I'm sitting there, I'm getting ready for the show and I'm reading these just again, countless, relentless attacks on Judge Clarence Thomas, one of the greatest living Americans, one of the greatest Americans ever. And I keep thinking to myself, what does the left hate this guy for? And the answer is just obvious. They just don't like him because he's black. Why does the left hate black people so much? Why do they do that? Anyone have any answer? Oh, mechanics. Thank you, Rose. That's a good one. I want to leave a video. But why do they hate black people so much? Why do you think about it? Right. What is not to love? Forget about like about Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas, one of the greatest jurists in the history of the United States of America, one of the most intelligent, kindest, nicest guys you're ever going to meet, grows up under de facto and de jure segregation, right, is treated horribly by a lot of people, overcomes all of this, becomes a Supreme Court justice and one of the finest in American history, one of the few actually understands the Constitution, can relate to it and write about it in an informed, engrossing kind of manner, right, overcomes all of this to become this living legend and the left hates him, why they hate him? They hate him because he's black. They hate him because he's black. Do you think about it, right? Do you see the body of attacks? Now, don't listen, make this mistake. You're probably saying yourself, no, Dan, they hate him because he's a punk. Jim's like, what? What? No, no, no. They hate conservatives, yes, but that's not why they hate Clarence Thomas. Sam Alito is a conservative. Has there been a 30 -year effort daily? No, they attack Sam Alito a lot, too. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to undersell that, but who is the subject of the left's ire for
The Eric Metaxas Show
Hadley Arkes' Lonely Crusade for Natural Law
"In a way, on a somewhat lonely crusade, because when you talk about natural law, you are, as we discussed previously, you're at least slightly at odds with friends of yours who we would think of as proponents of originalism. Samuel Alito, and others, who would quibble, you mentioned Scalia, maybe quibble is a nice way of putting it, but would argue with you and say that if it's not in the Constitution, we cannot go back to what the founders intent was, unless that's expressed in the Constitution, you take issue with that. Right. Well, Scalia said at one point, it's a bedrock principle, the First Amendment, we may not make restrictions on speech based on the content of the speech. Well, that's not that bedrock principle is not in my copy of the First Amendment. I think Scalia would often try to construe the Constitution, and determines what he thinks is the most sensible, which is say he's going, he's going back to natural law. I used to rib him and say, you know, for somebody, you offer sometimes handsome examples of natural law, for someone who professes up and down that it can't be done.
The Dan Bongino Show
Kayleigh McEnany: Media Should Focus on Hunter Biden, Not SCOTUS
"Kaylee a couple thoughts at first you're right about the Supreme Court We've had a number of substantial wins on faith on firearms on Chevron deference which is a big deal I mean the regulatory bureaucratic state These are big issues They may not sound like it but they are I mean we effectively have the bureaucracy running the country right now I'm going to ask you quite a kind of already know the answer to it but I just want your thoughts You think that's behind me recent attacks air quotes on Clarence Thomas with these nothing burgers to he took a vacation with a rich guy My gosh everybody in Congress basically any human being with any connection ever would be out of a job if that were a crime That's what they're trying to do Discredit the Supreme Court because they can't use it anymore 1000% I mean that's what the media does They pick someone who's a successful conservative I mean I'm sure I know you've had this in media I certainly had to ask press secretary If you are succeeding in making a difference with your voice they will call you every name under the book They will make up things against you They will investigate clarence Thomas but of course they won't look at Sotomayor Kagan or ketanji Brown Jackson or anyone else They're only going to look at Thomas and Alito and Roberts in the like When meanwhile they should be focusing on where the smoking gun is And of course I'm talking about Hunter Biden and the Biden family But no journalism there instead the New York Post who hasn't done the only journalism there really they are left out of a White House event That's how it works You don't subscribe to the mob mentality URLs
AP News Radio
Supreme Court temporarily extends access to abortion pill
"The Supreme Court has temporarily extended access to the abortion pill. The Supreme Court is leaving women's access to an abortion pill untouched until at least Friday. That gives the justices more time to consider whether to allow restrictions on mefo Preston to take effect. The court is dealing with the new abortion controversy, less than a year after its conservative majority overturned roe versus wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright. At stake now is whether to allow restrictions on the pill to take effect while a legal challenge to the medications FDA approval continues. In an order signed by justice Alito the court indicated it will act by Friday night. I'm Shelley Adler
WTOP
"alito" Discussed on WTOP
"Michelle Miller. Justice Samuel Alito signed an order late Friday afternoon to put a 5 day pause on the lower court's ruling while the justices fully consider the issue. The Biden administration and the maker of mifepristone filed an emergency appeal after a conservative Texas judge suspended the FDA's approval of the pill last Friday. The Supreme Court is giving all sides until noon Tuesday to provide written responses. Florida has just become the latest Republican led state to enact a near total ban on abortion, but some of the party worry that the hard line anti abortion rights policies popular with conservatives could alienate a broader set of people, including women and swing voters in 2024. The 21 year old air national guardsmen charged with sharing classified Pentagon documents online Jack Sarah remains in prison this weekend, CBS's Olivia goddess explains what was in the criminal complaint against him. We learned from the complaint that taxa held this clearance in this role of a cyber defense operations specialist within the intelligence wing of the Air National Guard. Now to Japan. Where a loud explosion was heard during the prime minister's visit to a western port, it's now thought that the object was a smoke bomb, no one was hurt and there's been one arrest. In Atlanta, the family of a mentally ill man who died in jail is demanding a probe into his death, Lesean Thompson was found three months after being arrested and pictures show his body but swords believed to be from bed bugs and other insects. Attorney Michael Harper is outraged. There is no
AP News Radio
Supreme Court keeps FDA abortion pill rules in place for now
"The U.S. Supreme Court says it will allow access to a key abortion drug to remain in place, while it considers challenges to a Texas judge's ruling that imposed a ban on its use. The Supreme Court order is signed by justice Samuel Alito, keeping intact the federal rules that allow women to access mifepristone, coming just hours before a ban would have taken place. The nation's highest court tells lawyers on both sides to weigh in by Tuesday, on lower court rulings. The U.S. solicitor general says a Texas court order overruling the FDA's judgment would unleash regulatory chaos. The anti abortion group suing to block if a Preston say the justices should allow the ban to take effect. And New York's governor Kathy hochul, a Democrat, says women across this nation. Our sick and tired of being treated as though we have no rights. It's expected the high court will take up the challenges next week. I'm Jackie Quinn
AP News Radio
High court: Trans girl can run girls track in West Virginia
"The Supreme Court says a transgender girl can run girls track in West Virginia. The Supreme Court will allow a 12 year old transgender girl in West Virginia to continue competing on her girl's sports teams in middle school while a lawsuit over a state band continues. The justices refused to disturb an appeals court order. They made it possible for Becky pepper Jackson to continue playing on her school's track and cross country teams, justices, Samuel Alito and clarence Thomas, would have allowed West Virginia to enforce its law against the girl. I'm Shelley Adler
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Showdown at the Supreme Court with the fate of president Joe Biden's plan to slash the student debt of more than 40 million people hanging in the balance, and the conservative justice is seen doubtful that Biden has the power to broadly cancel federal student loans because of the COVID emergency. For some of them, that huge price tag meant that Congress's authorization was needed, here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Samuel Alito. I think most casual observers would say, if you're going to give up that much amount of money, if you're going to affect the obligations of that many Americans on a subject that's of great controversy, they would think that's something for Congress to act on. Seems to presume that when it comes to the administration of benefits programs, $1 trillion here, a $1 trillion there. It doesn't really make that much difference to Congress. That doesn't seem very sensible. There was some support for the loan forgiveness from the court's liberal justices, who argued that Congress had made itself clear in the heroes act, which gives the education secretary the power to waive or modify provisions to ensure that debtors are not placed in a worse position financially because of a national emergency. Here are justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Congress used its voice in enacting this piece of legislation. All this business about executive power, I mean, we worry about executive power when Congress hasn't authorized the use of executive power. Here, Congress has authorized the use of executive power in an emergency situation. Those are exceptions that clearly are permitted under the HCA to cancel a debt. So why would I have a view that Congress didn't understand that in an emergency debt cancellation would be right. Joining me is Harold grant, a professor at the Chicago Kent college of law. So how does it appear that the courts conservative majority is to put it mildly highly skeptical that Biden has the power to implement this plan. To put a mildly yes, the majority of the court is very skeptical that the statute and powers of Biden administration with the power to cancel all the student loans. And the reason is that the statute does give the administration power to wave or modify any provision under the act in an emergency. And so much of the argument turns on what's the expanse of waiver and modification into Congress ever intend we've modification to include cancellation of up to $400 billion of debt with such a tremendous impact upon the economy. And to put it again, as you stated, to put it mildly chief justice Roberts was emphatically clear that he'd never thought that Congress would have given so much expansive authority to the administration to take that kind of action with such a broad impact on the economy. In other words, this emergency power according to the seeming majority of justices may be postponing debt, maybe limiting interest payments, but certainly didn't entail such broad cancellation authority. Does it seem like the only hope really for the student loan forgiveness program is if the justices don't find standing, which is the requirement that those challenging the plan here showed that they're being directly harmed by it. There is grave questions about whether the plaintiffs in both combined cases have what's called standing to proceed. There are lots of questions raised about whether the states can demonstrate the sufficient injury to continue the case. And with respect to the students, we're not benefited by the loan cancellation, whether they have standing by being frustrated because Biden didn't include them in the package of loans that were to be canceled. So they may not have any kind of recognized injury to pursue these claims anyway. And of course, their claim is odd. Their claim is we should have been included. And so you should knock down the Biden plan. That's a very strange kind of standing. And I do think it's fair to say that if the court decides this case on the merits, which would likely go against the Biden administration, they will be broadening standing, which is unusual because this court is most recently narrowed standing. So that's why I think this is a tough case. It seemed as if the liberal justices were the only ones really concerned about standing along with justice Amy Coney Barrett. Here's justice Barrett questioning whether Missouri can establish its standing by injury to mohila, a state corporation that services student loan debt. Why didn't the state just make mohela come then if mojo has really an arm of the state and all of this would be a lot easier when the solicitor general conceded that if mojito was here, mojo would have standing, if mojola is an arm of the state, why didn't you just strung our magilla and say you've got to pursue this soup? There is one processor in Missouri, which is a kind of state corporation that's separate from the state, but it gets public. That's called mahela, and so it was a question as even though they haven't come in. They haven't sued whether Missouri as a state has enough overlap with mohela so that they in essence can say that either they will be affected if mohil suffers or where they can raise claims on behalf of mytho because they're both part of the state of Missouri. Let's talk about the merits. What do you think was the main concern of the justice? Was it a problem with separation of powers? The problem is that the justices saw it articulated over and over. Is this is a massive program. And did Congress went into enacted the heroes act and gave the administration of power and emergency to make modifications to the student loan programs. Did they ever envision something on this scale, a scale that would encompass 25 to 40 million people in this country, a scale that could cause cancellation of debts to the amount of $400 billion over 30 years. And I think they just thought that this was such a massive scale that the Biden administration wasn't just sort of modifying the program the national emergency. But by canceling debt, it was actually changing the nature of the student loan program and the question is whether Congress really anticipated or envisioned an administration having that much power even though they said that you should have extraordinary powers in the face of an emergency. I mean, is this all about the major questions doctrine that the court has used before to stop Biden administration initiatives during the pandemic, like the moratorium on rental evictions that was struck down. The court did involve the major questions doctrine as a way to suggest that if we're not sure about the scope of Congress's intended delegation, then we should put our finger on the scale of saying we don't allow an agency to take such kind of wide and expansive action unless we're very confident that the Congress wanted them to go that far. And the language under the heroes act under which the Biden administration predicated this change allows the sector of education to make a waiver and a modification to the program. So clearly, Congress said, we think you should take action in an emergency. And the question is by using the language waiver and modification does that include cancellation as well. And if you have the expectation that agencies should not take expansive interpretations of authority granted by Congress, then you come down on the side that a cancellation does not equal a waiver or a modification. But if on the other hand, if you come down the side that Congress was acting an extraordinary way saying you the administration should take extraordinary measures in the face of an emergency, then a wave in a modification can include a cancellation and that a Biden administration would be upheld. Even justice Kavanaugh said that Congress acted here it thought about the problem and it wanted to give the education department extraordinary powers to protect Americans in the face of any kind of emergency, whether it's like 9 11, which precipitated passage of the heroes act or if it's like COVID. So there is a question even with
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Showdown of his Supreme Court, with the fate of president Joe Biden's plan to slash the student debt of more than 40 million people hanging in the balance. And the conservative justice is seen doubtful that Biden has the power to broadly cancel federal student loans because of the COVID emergency. For some of them, that huge price tag meant that Congress's authorization was needed, here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Samuel Alito. I think most casual observers would say if you're going to give up that much amount of money if you're going to affect the obligations of that many Americans on a subject that's of great controversy, they would think that's something for Congress to act on. Seems to presume that when it comes to the administration of benefits programs, $1 trillion here at $1 trillion there. It doesn't really make that much difference to Congress. That doesn't seem very sensible. There was some support for the loan forgiveness from the court's liberal justices, who argued that Congress had made itself clear in the heroes act, which gives the education secretary the power to waive or modify provisions to ensure that debtors are not placed in a worse position financially because of a national emergency. Here are just as Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Congress used its voice in enacting this piece of legislation. All this business about executive power, I mean, we worry about executive power when Congress hasn't authorized the use of executive power. Here, Congress has authorized the use of executive power in an emergency situation. Those are exceptions that clearly are permitted under the HCA to cancel a debt. So why would I have a view that Congress didn't understand that in an improper emergency debt cancellation would be right. Joining these Harold grant, a professor at the Chicago Kent college of law. So how does it appear that the courts conservative majority is to put it mildly highly skeptical that Biden has the power to implement this plan. To put a mildly yes, the majority of the court is very skeptical that the statute and powers that Biden administration with the power to cancel all of the student loans. And the reason is that the statute does give the administration power to wave or modify any provision under the act in an emergency. And so much of the argument turns on what's the expanse of waiver and modification into Congress ever intend we've modification to include cancellation of up to $400 billion of debt with such a tremendous impact upon the economy. And to put it again, as you stated to put it mildly chief justice Roberts was emphatically clear that he'd never thought that Congress would have given so much expansive authority to the administration to take that kind of action with such a broad impact on the economy. In other words, this emergency power according to the seeming majority of justices may be postponing debt, maybe limiting interest payments, but certainly didn't entail such broad cancellation authority. Does it seem like the only hope really for the student loan forgiveness program is if the justices don't find standing, which is the requirement that those challenging the plan here showed that they're being directly harmed by it. There is grave questions about whether the plaintiffs in both combined cases have what's called standing to proceed. There are lots of questions raised about whether the states can demonstrate the sufficient injury to continue the case. And with respect to the students, we're not benefited by the loan cancellation, whether they have standing by being frustrated because Biden didn't include them in the package of loans that were to be canceled. So they may not have any kind of recognized injury to pursue these claims anyway. And of course, their claim is odd. Their claim is we should have been included. And so you should knock down the Biden plan. That's a very strange kind of standing. And I do think it's fair to say that if the court decides this case on the merits which would likely go against the Biden administration, they'll be broadening standing, which is unusual because this court is most recently narrowed standing. So that's why I think this is a tough case. It seemed as if the liberal justice is where the only ones really concerned about standing along with justice Amy Coney Barrett. Here's justice Barrett questioning whether Missouri can establish its standing by injury to mohila, a state corporation that services student loan debt. Why didn't the state just make mohela come then if mohil has really an arm of the state and all of this would be a lot easier when the solicitor general conceded that if mojito was here mojito would have standing, if mohil is an arm of the state, why didn't you just strung our magilla and say you've got to pursue this soup? There is one processor in Missouri, which is a kind of state corporation that's separate from the state, but it gets public. That's called mahela, and so it was a question as even though they haven't come in. They haven't sued whether Missouri as a state has enough overlap with mohela so that they in essence can say that either they will be affected if mohila suffers or where they can raise claims on behalf of Mikhail because they're both part of the state of Missouri. Let's talk about the merits. What do you think was the main concern of the justices? Was it a problem with separation of powers? The problem is that the justices saw it articulated over and over. Is this is a massive program. And did Congress went into enacted the heroes act and gave the administration of power and emergency to make modifications to the student loan programs. Did they ever envision something on this scale, a scale that would encompass 25 to 40 million people in this country, a scale that could cause cancellation of debts to the amount of $400 billion over 30 years. And I think they just thought that this was such a massive scale that the Biden administration wasn't just sort of modifying the program the national emergency. But by canceling debt, it was actually changing the nature of the student loan program and the question is whether Congress really anticipated or envisioned an administration having that much power even though they said that you should have extraordinary powers in the face of an emergency. I mean, is this all about the major questions doctrine that the court has used before to stop Biden administration initiatives during the pandemic, like the moratorium on rental evictions that was struck down. The court did invoke the major questions doctrine as a way to suggest that if we're not sure about the scope of Congress's intended delegation, then we should put our finger on the scale of saying we don't allow an agency to take such kind of wide and expansive action unless we're very confident that the Congress wanted them to go that far. And the language under the heroes act under which the Biden administration predicated this change allows the sector of education to make a waiver and a modification to the program. So clearly, Congress said, we think you should take action in an emergency. And the question is by using the language waiver and modification does that include cancellation as well. And if you have the expectation that agencies should not take expansive interpretations of authority granted by Congress, then you come down on the side that a cancellation does not equal a waiver or a modification. But if on the other hand, if you come down the side that Congress was acting an extraordinary way saying you the administration should take extraordinary measures in the face of an emergency, then a wave or a modification can include a cancellation and that a Biden administration would be upheld. Even justice Kavanaugh said that Congress acted here it thought about the problem and it wanted to give the education department extraordinary powers
The Eric Metaxas Show
A Listener Writes in to Eric
"This letter and I wanted to read this because I thought this helps me clarify where I'm coming from. All right, so this person writes, we're going to withhold the name. Eric, part of me never believed I would see this day, the era of roe V wade is over. So obviously I got this a number of months ago, and we've been holding it. But part of me never believed I'd see the day the era of roe V wade is over. When my husband and I visited independence hall back in October of 2016, the tour guide mentioned Ben Franklin's if you can keep it statement. I elbowed my husband and said, that's the title of Eric metaxas latest book. And this woman is obviously correct because this book did come out in 2016. She continues the election was only a few weeks away and we both knew it was important if you can keep it. So for a few moments in the birthplace of our republic, we prayed. We prayed for the lord's will to be accomplished in the election as the 2016 election. We prayed for wisdom. My husband wasn't a citizen then, so I had the sole vote for our family. I agonized over the decision. I wasn't sure he, Trump, was the man for the job. But today, I am so thankful I voted for him. Now, this is because of roe V wade. This woman is writing. Today I'm so thankful I voted for him. I'm thankful for your op-ed in The Wall Street Journal about the election. Now, in October of 2016, I wrote an op-ed that was published in The Wall Street Journal saying should Christians vote for Trump. This woman continues. I agreed that the Supreme Court appointments and the possibility of overturning roe was worth the risk. I marvel at the courage of justices Thomas Alito Gorsuch Kavanaugh and Barrett. And although abortion is still legal where we live in Washington state, I am emboldened to believe that God wants to change hearts and lives and end abortion even here. With roe overturned a terrible wrong has been made right, thank you for standing for truth. Wow. So this really this got me choked up and I said, at some point, if we can squeeze it in, I want to read it because I remember, you know, I think a lot of people, Trump is of course a very divisive figure. But I think a big part of the reason he's advised that figure is because he doesn't take Bologna, right?
AP News Radio
What did Roe v. Wade actually say? The landmark abortion rights ruling, explained
"The Supreme Court says so far its investigation has failed to find who leaked a draft of an opinion overturning abortion rights. More than 120 people were interviewed over the last 8 months, including the justices law clerks, all of them swore under oath. They did not disclose a draft of justice Samuel Alito's opinion that overturned roe versus wade. It's not clear if the justices themselves were interviewed about the leak. This was the first time an entire opinion reached the public before the court was ready to announce it. The court says the investigation isn't over yet, and is not ruling out the possibility the opinion was inadvertently left in a public space and
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Grosso from Bloomberg radio. Justice Samuel Alito is denying allegations in a New York Times story that said he leaked the outcome of a landmark case over religious liberties at a dinner party at his home in 2014, Alito was the author of the majority in that decision burwell V hobby lobby, which allowed closely held corporations to claim a religious exemption from the requirements under the Affordable Care Act that employers provide birth control coverage as part of their health plans for employees. Alito was also the author of this year's controversial ruling overturning the right to abortion, an opinion that leaked into the public more than a month before it was issued, the court has yet to release the results of an internal investigation into that leak that happened more than 6 months ago. I've been talking to professor Mary ziegler of UC Davis law school. So Mary, before the break, we were talking about some of the speaking engagements justice Alito has made since that controversial decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion and really rocked the country. You really can't overstate the implications of that decision. And yet in a few speeches that Alito has made since those decisions, he seems to be reveling in it. The kind of jurist he is, I think he sees his commitment to his own interpretation of the law, a skeptic might take his own ideological commitments, however you want to look at it. His idea of what the right answer is, his fidelity to that is so important that he's not as worried about the damage I would say to the institution of the court. And in some ways, I think, to your point kind of relishes, confrontations and criticism doesn't just display indifference or if it actually sort of enjoys the criticism. Again, it's sort of interesting to see if stories like this are still a bridge too far. For someone like Alito, that even there's some kind of trolling and some kind of enjoyment of criticism and then there's this kind of allegation that might be a different kind of story. Democratic senator Sheldon whitehouse and democratic representative Hank Johnson wrote to the court about the times story. And Ethan Tory legal counsel for the Supreme Court wrote there's nothing to suggest that justice Alito's actions violated ethic standards. Relevant rules balance preventing gifts that might undermine public confidence in the judiciary and allowing judges to maintain normal personal friendships. From that letter, it doesn't seem as if the court is doing any investigation beyond asking Alito. Right. I mean, I think that this is designed to help the courts reputation or to defuse questions about this. I don't think it will help. I mean, I think that it would have been possible to do something that would achieve that, but I think that essentially the letter suggests, and I am obviously not privy to what investigations went on within the court, but the letters suggest simply that there's no evidence that was available to Supreme Court's council to suggest that such a leak. Took place, the letter mostly restated Alito's denials, and then suggested that the allegations made in The New York Times piece were uncorroborated and then further, I think, interestingly suggested that there wasn't the kind of corruption that would be concerning to counsel because the donors in the case had no financial interest in any kind of case before the court, which of course wasn't really what mister schenck was talking about allegedly he was saying there was kind of an ideological interest in the outcome of cases. No one was interested in profiting financially, but they wanted to dictate the course of policy because of their beliefs and their ideological commitments not because of any kind of financial stake. So that also seemed kind of interestingly non responsive. Again, I don't know if there was more of an investigation than we are aware of from the outside looking in, but the letter didn't really provide a lot of new information or really explain beyond what justice Alito and in the donors who've been quite clear in their denials have already been seeing. And as far as the leak of yet another Alito opinion, the Dobbs opinion, supposedly there's an investigation ongoing, but it's been months and months and months, and no one has heard anything about that investigation either. Right, I mean, we just don't know. I mean, one of the things I think that I think unfortunately is happening from the standpoint of faith in the court is that the court is an institution that often operates without a lot of transparency. And so when these leaks occur, and then the public has no insight into what led to them or what was going to follow them, it doesn't really do the court's reputation any favors. And that's certainly true of the dog's leak as well. I think the kind of sum total of this is that more people in the public are losing faith in the courtesan institution. And I don't think that's something we should be excited about. Even people who are skeptics of the quarter unhappy with the court, I think it's not good for the country when voters are losing faith in yet another democratic institution. In your op-ed, you say that the justices feel insulated. And they are insulated. They have these lifetime appointments, and let's face it impeachment, they tried to impeach former president Trump twice. It didn't work and impeachment seems like not even a possibility really. So what can be done to at least keep them in check a little? Is there anything that can be done? Well, I mean, we know historically that Congress has done things to check the power of the court's Congress is allowed to strip the court of jurisdiction and certain matters. In theory, other kind of court reform measures like adding justices or changing the number of justices could also be on the table. I don't have any reason to think there's any political will for doing any of that right now. So I think we're in this kind of interesting cat and mouse moment where members of the court seem to believe that there's no consequences for really anything. I think with reason, right? Because there don't really seem to be any consequences. And yet the public is becoming more and more disillusioned, I think, to a point that's potentially dangerous for the court. So I think the question becomes, is there any step the court can take that that goes so far that either politicians or voters reconsider their ideas that both that there are very unhappy with the court that they're not necessarily supportive of any kind of measure to change how much power the court has or how it operates. Thanks so much for your insights, Mary. That's Mary ziegler, a professor at UC Davis law school. There are several cases this term in which the conservative supermajority on the court could make major change in the law, such as ending affirmative action, further gutting what's left of the Voting Rights Act, giving state legislatures unprecedented powered up and federal elections, curbing the power of the EPA further and giving religious business owners the power to refuse service to LGBTQ customers. A new national survey by marquette law school finds only 44% of adults approve of
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Supreme Court is still investigating the leak in May of the controversial decision written by justice Samuel Alito overturning roe versus wade. And now the times is reporting another alleged breach at the court. According to allegations in a time story published on November 19th, justice Alito leaked the outcome of a landmark case over religious liberties at a dinner party at his home in 2014. That decision written by Alito burwell V hobby lobby allowed closely held corporations to claim a religious exemption from the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that employers provide birth control coverage as part of their employee healthcare plans. Justice Alito has denied the allegations saying that any suggestion that he or his wife disclose the ruling early to anyone was false. Alito was also the author of this year's controversial ruling overturning the constitutional right to an abortion and opinion that leaked into the public more than a month before it was issued. The court has yet to release the results of an internal investigation into that leak, my guest is Mary ziegler, a professor at UC Davis law school who's written an op-ed about this latest alleged breach. Mary for those who did not read The New York Times story, tell us about the allegations there. So rob shank, who is a longtime member of the anti abortion movement in the kind of broader religious right, alleged that he had been working for years through his nonprofit. To cultivate a kind of network of insiders at the Supreme Court, particularly wealthy donors. And, you know, he was doing this he pledged both to gain access to and influence within the court, but also, of course, to raise money for his own organization. This kind of access and information he allegedly had a value to donors who might in turn give to his nonprofit. And he alleged that he successfully cultivated donors who created relationship with justices Thomas Alito and Scalia and that in particular through these relationships, he gained a tip through justice Alito about the hobby lobby case in 2014, which listeners may remember dealt with the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Justice Alito, according to shank, told one of these donors ahead of time how the case would be decided essentially that the court would side with religious employers in the case and invalidate the contraceptive mandate and that justice Alito would be the one to write that opinion. Following the story, justice Alito categorically denied having leaked any information, so did the donors who dined with justice Alito. Both the donors and the leader confirmed the relationship it's worth emphasizing that denied the leak, but shank replied essentially that he had contemporaneous evidence like emails and statements from colleagues suggesting both that he knew something confidential and that he expected to win the hobby lobby case. So it was kind of yet another blow to a court that's had record low popularity and questions raised about its legitimacy. To the conservative justices really care about the public's opinion of the court. I mean, it's hard to say, right? I think not in the way that historically we've grown accustomed to, I think, you know, justice Roberts, for example, would not have behaved, I think, would not have decided several of the cases last term the way the court did in part because of his concern for the public's perception of the court. So it's fair to say that the court's new conservative majority doesn't care about legitimacy or public perception. In a way, we've grown accustomed to even for the conservative justices. I think the interesting question is, do they have any concern at all? Is there a point at which someone like justice Alito does become anxious about how the public is perceiving their actions? And I think this story is an interesting litmus test. I mean, it's interesting, at least that justice leader, I think, has been trying to say, you know, the story isn't true and I would never do that. I mean, I think those are the kinds of things you do when you worry about how people would perceive your actions. He didn't, for example, say, you know, so what if I did that like what difference does it make? I mean, it was pretty clearly an effort to say this kind of behavior. Wouldn't have been acceptable and I didn't engage in it. Whether or not one believes that, I think that's still been just as sweet as strategy. Over the summer at a speech in Rome and at a recent federalist society dinner, Alito seemed to be taking bows for that decision overturning abortion. Yeah, I think in general, justice Alito and several of the conservative justices are kind of evidence of how polarized not just the country is, but the legal community is because I think we would have expected the justices to be plugged into the fact that the dogs ruling was unpopular and that it sent shockwaves through much of the legal community. But of course, justice Alito has his own legal community, the conservative legal movement is broad and deep and has support across a number of law school campuses in a number of law firms, a number of lots of parts of the legal world. And I think in those communities, justice Alito is getting all the approval and support. He wants. And I think also from the standpoint of the kind of jurist he is, I think he sees his commitment to his own interpretation of the law, a skeptic might say his own ideological commitments, however you want to look at it. His idea of what the right answer is, his fidelity to that is so important that he's not as worried about the damage I would say to the institution of the court. Coming up next on the Bloomberg launch show, I'll continue this conversation with professor Mary ziegler, the response of a Supreme Court's legal counsel. This is Bloomberg. When it comes to the markets
Bloomberg Radio New York
"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
Mark Levin
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
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Court deal another blow to the Voting Rights Act? And the court is going to step into the politically fraught debate over section two 30. In oral arguments today, the Supreme Court's conservatives considered limiting the creation of majority black voting districts in a case that could deliver another blow to the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 law designed to protect minority voters at the ballot box. The court is considering whether Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing its congressional map in a way that ensures the state will have just one black representative for the next decade. Alabama is 27% black, but has only one majority black voting district out of 7 in all. A three judge panel said Alabama was probably violating the Voting Rights Act with its map drawn by the Republican control legislature. Joining his election law expert Rick Hassan, a professor at UCLA law school. Tell us what the issue is here about the Alabama map. So the Voting Rights Act requires that under certain conditions, basically when there are large populations of minority voters. And white voters and minority voters tend to vote for different candidates. It's possible that the Voting Rights Act requires the drawing of a district to give those minority voters a chance to get representation. And the Alabama case, a three judge court held that although Alabama had one congressional district where minority voters could elect a candidate of choice. They were entitled to a second one given the size of their population where the population was and the continued racially polarized voting in the state of Alabama. So the fact that the Supreme Court stepped in and allowed Alabama to keep its map for the primaries just as Kagan called it clear vote dilution. Do you see that as the court tipping its hand here? Well, back when the court decided to put this ruling on hold, that was a pretty good indication that a majority of the court's justices thought that Alabama was likely to win. In fact, chief justice Roberts, who is not always most friendly to voting rights plaintiffs, dissented from that order back last spring because he said that under existing law looks like Alabama should win. So the question really is whether or not the court is ready to tweak or more radically change, understanding of how the Voting Rights Act works. If it does so in this case, depending on how it does though it could have small implications or very large implications for minority representation. In the Congress as well as in state and local legislatures. What was the main focus of the oral arguments? Well, Alabama advanced a number of different arguments. Their most radical argument would essentially rework section two of the Voting Rights Act. And there was little appetite on the court for issuing an opinion that would overturn decades of precedent and have a whole new approach to the Voting Rights Act. But there was much more interest, at least among some of the conservative justices, especially justice Alito in tweaking the existing standards in a way that would make it look like the court is continuing with its application of existing law, but actually changes the standards enough to make it easier for states to win and harder for minority voters to win. The real question is whether or not the other justices would be willing to go along with justice Alito. Can you describe what he would want to do? Was justice Alito would do is essentially inject into this, it's complicated as a three part test followed by a multi car test to figure out when there's a Voting Rights Act violation. Justice Alito suggested changing one of those parts of the initial three part test known as the jingles test for 1986 case called thornburg versus jingles. Which would essentially require minority voters to demonstrate that they would be in college or representation, even if you did not look at race. In applying the usual criteria that states do when they decide how to draw their maps. The very technical point are hard to explain briefly on a radio interview, but the upshot is that if justice illegals views prevail, it's just going to be much harder for minority plaintiffs to win the case. And justice gate Brown Jackson had a lot to say, as she did yesterday. Well, justice Jackson, even though this was only her second day of oral argument, the Supreme Court came out of the box very well prepared and extremely aggressive in countering what justice Alito was trying to do, so justice Alito was trying to find a way to re interpret the standards that apply to section two. And justice Jackson's main point was that justice will leave us approach is inconsistent with the text of section two. It's inconsistent with the precedent that's applied section two. And there's no constitutional reason. I thought it was particularly notable that on the constitutional point, justice Jackson went back to the original understanding of the reconstruction amendments, the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, which provide the basis for Congress to act to pass the Voting Rights Act. I saw that as an appeal to some of the justices who are originalists on the court. Care about the original meaning. And what she was trying to argue is that the Voting Rights Act as it's been understood is very much in line with what those who passed the Fourteenth Amendment thought could happen, which is that there could be race conscious laws that could be passed to provide protection for members of our society who faced past discrimination. Coming up next in the Bloomberg law show, I'm going to continue this conversation with professor Rick casson of UCLA law school. We'll talk about how the court is likely to rule here, and an upcoming Supreme Court case on redistricting that
Mark Levin
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
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Public remark since all during the opinion that wiped out the constitutional right to abortion, justice Samuel Alito mocked the world leaders who criticized that opinion in a speech at a religious liberty summit in Rome. I had the honor of this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lamb basted by a whole string of foreign leaders. One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price. My guest is constitutional law scholar Kim Whaley, a professor at the university of Baltimore law school. Kim this seems so out of character for Supreme Court Justice. I can't remember another justice or even a judge who ridiculed world leaders publicly. Well, I'm not entirely surprised because he made a pretty shocking speech in 2020 to the federalist society where he really crossed some lines of independence. But of course, you know, getting into sort of the international political arena in that way, so deliberately making fun of Forrest Johnson and the royal family, et cetera. But what really bothered me about it is that he introduced the topic of saying he had quote the honor of writing. This opinion that is Dobbs that was lambasted. The honor, when meanwhile, he seems to just shrug off the fact that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of women and girls are horrified by this and many will be physically and emotionally and psychologically and personally deeply affected and negative ways by virtue of what he says was an honor. He opened his jobs opinion talking about how abortion is a moral issue that he would address it in such a trivial way tickets so personally that people take issue with this landmark ruling that reversed 50 years of precedent as withdraws for the first time in American history and established individual constitutional right and affects women and girls. You know, it makes me uncomfortable to even hear that given his stature as a Supreme Court Justice. Alito has a history of not behaving with the decorum we'd expect of a Supreme Court Justice. We all remember his shaking his head and mouthing the words not true during president Obama's State of the Union address when he criticized the citizens united decision. And he also mocked the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by pursing his lips and shaking his head and rolling his eyes as she read a dissent from the bench. In 2013, so is this perhaps par for the course for him? Well, as a constitutional law, professor, if you look at actually the substance of what he said. And again, what he said in 2020 at this federal society speech. I mean, it looks like justice Alito really believes that religion and I would guess based on his comments. Christianity because he seemed aghast that a ten year old would not know who Jesus was and he talked about an image of Jesus in Germany and he was stunned that the child didn't know what that was. I mean, I think there are plenty of Christians that would not know iconic images from other religions, for example. It looks like he really has this personal sense that religion is under assault that is almost irrational, right? He talks about how people and he even sort of made a nod to his colleagues and I'm assuming the progressives want no special protection for religion, he said. And he compared those who aren't on believers in protecting religion, even in the public sphere. That's his position. He compared them to Green Bay Packers fans. And the idea that people who don't adhere to his strong view of Christianity as central to American culture and society are somehow thinking of religion as a sports team. And that's just not true. I think the other justices and people that care about this issue and most Americans understand there's a line to be drawn between the free exercise clause and what we know is the establishment clause. And in two cases, this term, the court whittled down the establishment clause. I think what we're going to see, frankly, is religion back in government. And when you hear justice Alito, he's doing more than calling balls and strikes under the law, which is really what the role of judges are in the federal system because they're not elected, and he really believes he's on some bigger mission. He equated not having religion and government to potentiality for totalitarianism. He suggested, we'll look at the Soviets. They pushed religion out and they fell. You know, of course he's ignoring places like Afghanistan and the Taliban, where religion has been used to justify tremendous human rights violations. He's really kind of almost off kilter frankly in terms of what should sound like from a Supreme Court Justice as neutral thoughtful, unemotional, un ideological assessment of the law and the fact. Americans seem to be losing confidence in the Supreme Court. According to a recent AP norc poll, 43% of Americans have hardly any confidence in the court at all. 39% have only some confidence. The Supreme Court doesn't have its own army to enforce what it says is the rule of law. That it gave itself out authority in the 19th century and in a landmark case called marbury versus Madison. What happens if and when people say, I don't need to listen to the Supreme Court. There are jokes. Then what happens to the whole fabric and structure of our legal system and the implications of this can not really be overstated, and this is why I think we're in Kagan are right have been sounding the alarm in some of their defense now for a few years that when you degrade the institutions, it's very hard to rebuild them so that the damage that's being done by Alito speech, but also by what they're doing to the constitution is very, very serious. Thanks, Kim. That's professor Kim Whaley of the university of Baltimore law school. Coming up, book wars. This is Bloomberg. Not complete. Progressive snapshot can save you money based on how you drive
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"That Thomas had in his concurrence in Dobbs about going back to reconsider gay marriage and sexual privacy and contraception, I hear the voice of fairly extreme law clerks that clarence Thomas typically hires. And for Brett Kavanaugh, if indeed he is a slightly more moderate conservative, he may well have slightly more moderately conservative clerks. And let's face it, they do right typically the first draft of the justices opinions. So here I think Kavanaugh's agreement with the team and his chambers, but also it does, in his mind, I'm sure help to separate them from what he must see as the extremism from his colleagues from the Trump era and Alito and Thomas. But still, I mean, even though he says that, and he writes that, he still goes along with the majority and gives them the 5th vote that they need, or the 6th vote that they want. Well, yes, and so did the chief justice because I think they all wanted to end roe. And then you also get to the issue of fool me once. Shame on you, whatever it was for George W. Bush had trouble saying, but if I'm fooled by, I think it was Susan Collins said, oh, well, Brett Kavanaugh lied to me about upholding roe. Well, if you go back and listen to what those conservatives were saying about roe, they were spouting, first of all, the party line to get them confirmed because they all said the same thing. And they'd all been coached to say that, which was, yes, it's precedent. Well, that's a truism. Rowe was precedent. Should they pay attention to precedent? Yes, that's one of the maxims of self restraint of the court. But they didn't just come straight out and say, I would never under any circumstances overturn roe. So nevertheless, they led some people to believe, including Susan Collins, that they wouldn't vote to overturn roe. So if you believe that, then are you going to believe what the chief justice was saying in the oral arguments which sounded like he wanted to uphold the Mississippi statute on the 15 week limitation on abortions and yet voted to overturn roe in effect. And are you going to believe Kavanaugh that he won't go back with the rest of the conservatives and look at and overturn the sexual privacy cases the contraceptive cases and the marriage equality cases? I don't think for a moment that those are safe with these 5 men and one woman on the bench on the right. As you mentioned, clarence Thomas seems to still be holding a grudge for his confirmation 30 years ago. He told his law clerks two years after his confirmation, according to a 1993 article from The New York Times that he intended to serve on the highest court of the land to make the lives of liberals miserable. So yes, but it seems like Kavanaugh is not taking that tact. He's not. And good for him because as someone who appreciates what it takes to be a federal judge and especially on the highest court in the land, I believe in something that's called judicial temperament. That is that justice not only should be as neutral as he or she can be. But they should just have the personality and persona of someone with maturity and judicial temperament. And I would have made the argument that Brett Kavanaugh did not display proper judicial temperament while he was at that time a federal judge before the Senate Judiciary Committee. So my view is that he at least now after getting on the court is trying to hold to judicial temperament. And as we said, that might be his normal persona anyway. Maybe that's not so hard for him. And so good for him that he's taking a different approach from the I will be angry till I die, clarence Thomas vision. And by the way, he was also an angry young man. And understandably so, he came from the Deep South where he was discriminated against. He studied for the priesthood at one time. He was in the Catholic seminary and when he heard people saying nasty things about Martin Luther King upon king's assassination, he gave up and he left. He left the church at that point. He's now come back to the Catholic Church, but he's had a lot of anger in his life. And it all came tumbling out again because of the Anita hill accusations whether they were true or not, it certainly riled him up and he is riled to this day. And now being able to have his conservative positions become the law of the land, he's also must be doing a happy day out. So Kavanaugh was a clerk of justice Anthony Kennedy and took his place on the court. Do you think that over time Kavanaugh will move closer to where justice Kennedy was? Or is he just too conservative? There's always hope, yes. And particularly since Kavanaugh has messaged through his opinions and through his demeanor on the bench and his not going out and being angry in
Mark Levin
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
The Dan Bongino Show
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
The Dan Bongino Show
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
The Dan Bongino Show
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
The Dan Bongino Show
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
Bloomberg Radio New York
"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 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 draft is 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 that 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.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Within the anti worship movement they're very different definitions of what counts as an 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 Juan do states do something that would give rise to a case And few 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 if the draft that drops 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 that 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 The progressive presents forest metaphors about bundling your.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"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.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"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.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"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.
Mark Levin
Chuck Schumer Doesn't Care That Protests Are Illegal Against Justices
"So Chuck Schumer is comfortable with his mob his ready mob is permanent mob violating federal law I want you to listen to this again Cut 13 Go Are you comfortable with the protests that we saw outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices over the weekend If protests are peaceful yes My House is there's protests three four times a week outside my house That's the American way to peacefully protest is okay And I've been that's my wife Sorry Maybe there's a protest outside But so as long as I know it's so funny that same Alito and his family have to go into hiding Oh it's so funny ladies and gentlemen And they're the clapping seals media They're laughing quite along Oh his wife is calling Sure she's a beauty Go ahead Peaceful That's okay with me That's okay with him So peaceful is not an element In this statute It's the protest It's the protest that's illegal Because the goal of the protest is to interfere with justice The goal with the protest is to obstruct and impede justice The goal of the protest is to influence the outcome of Supreme Court cases That's why they're protesting That's what they've told us in plain English And the attorney general of the United States Merrick Garland hasn't lifted one of his arthritic fingers in opposition not one
Mark Levin
Sunny Hostin Cares More About Polls Than Justices' Safety
"Hey there's this sunny hostin kare go I was watching a lot of the protests that were happening outside of some of the justices homes And my understanding is that justice Alito has had to go into hiding Because of this draft opinion that was leaked And while I think it is terrible that a justice would have to go into hiding I think it is really clear to the justices now that as Anna mentioned 64 to 66% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court should uphold rope What does that have to do with anything If 64 to 60% 66% of the Americans in the 1850s supported slavery or segregation we have a system that's set up where the courts adjudicate They don't sit there and see what 64 66% of Americans want Number one number two that is a lie What kind of abortion are we even talking about The vast majority of Americans oppose partial birth abortion When it's explained to them So the media censor it You will not find sunny hostin Arguing let's run a video of a partial birth abortion So everybody can know this isn't a baby It's about the woman's body and it's a choice Why not sunny
The Dan Bongino Show
Amber Athey: Dems Can Move to California if Worried About Abortion
"Amber you know abortion to the left It's a sacrament I understand why but it's just their obsession with terminating the life of children in the womb It's bizarre I mean they'll sacrifice anything to make sure that this continues You see them defacing themselves humiliating themselves Even with these hyperbolic nonsensical lies after the Alito ruling leaked Now amber if you actually read the ruling which I know you did is very circumspect He's very clear Alito that is only involves abortion I read it on the air before Yet you see these ridiculous out there about Jim Crow's coming back interstate travel is going to be banned I mean these people have any dignity That stores it They're just done They're cooked It's absolutely not And they seem to think that this immediately outlaws abortion across the entire United States for some reason even though it clearly is giving the power back to states to decide how many restrictions they want to place on abortion So if these people are so intent on killing their children they could just go move to liberal California or liberal New York and they'll be free to rip baby bows in the womb as long as they please I mean to me that the hyper reaction to this it feels a bit demonic to me honestly I mean if people go and watch there's just one clip of Anna kasparian who's from the Young Turks Oh yeah yeah we got that Yeah we're playing that clip Yes yes perfect We're going to play that clip later We played it in my podcast earlier Yeah she's like losing her marbles It's like the craziest thing I've ever
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Opinion In the 98 page draft justice Samuel Alito writes Rowe was egregiously wrong from the start it also references Planned Parenthood V Casey justice alita writes quote we hold that row and Casey must be overruled This woman says she joined the demonstrations when she heard the high court may plan to overturn roe V wade You know it really just feels like all the work we put into was just torn up and thrown in the garbage and it's honestly ridiculous to me because of how far we've come right to just be set back in time Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and House speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement referencing justices like Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch who have said that roe is settled law writing the conservative justices quote have lied to the U.S. Senate and ripped up the constitution In Washington I'm Amy Morris Bloomberg daybreak Thank you all abortion rights is now an issue that could reshape the midterm elections and Bloomberg law reporter Joan Grasso continues our team coverage in New York It would become a huge issue for the midterms people say that it would perhaps invigorate the democratic base to get out there because this is really one of the social issues of our time and women's law for so long to get the right to an abortion And now in pretty short measure in the history of our rights it being overturned Bloomberg Sharon Grasso says the leaking of the Supreme Court draft decision is perhaps more surprising than the apparent ruling And we'll have more details and analysis Karen on that apparent Supreme Court decision coming up shortly First we want to get to the latest on the war in Eastern Europe Boris Johnson weighs in on the conflict today The British prime minister will evoke his own countries wartime history in a virtual address to Ukraine's parliament Let's get the latest from Bloomberg's UN pots in London Good morning Ewan Good morning Nathan and Karen Boris Johnson is addressing Ukraine's parliament today becoming the first world leader to do so He's expected to say that the bravery demonstrated by Ukrainian fighters means that war will come to be known as the country's finest hour echoing the words of British leader Winston Churchill In addition to the UK has announced a new package of some $375 million in military aid for Ukraine In London I'm you and Potts Bloomberg daybreak You and thank you all in Ukraine today more civilian evacuations are expected from marry a poll and other cities in Russian hands as the conflict drags on former CIA director David Petraeus says it slowly grinding Russia down The Russians are running out of troops and material they can not replace what has been lost at least not in the short term It's possible that Vladimir Putin on 9 May during the World War II victory day celebration in Moscow could announce general mobilization or something like that Retired general David Petraeus is now chairman of the KKR global institute He spoke with David west and on Bloomberg's balance of power catch the show weekdays at noon eastern on Bloomberg radio and television Karen Citigroup is still seeking potential buyers for its operations in Russia We spoke with CEO Jane Fraser about the effort We are selling our consumer and our commercial banking franchise.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Council This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio The Supreme Court seems prime to rule against Boston for refusing to allow an organization to fly a Christian flag in front of city hall Just as is across the ideological spectrum suggested that Boston had created a public forum rather than conveying government speech Here are justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan When you say anybody can speak at putting up a flag with these few exceptions are you not creating a forum for private speech rather than speaking on speaking your own mind A program that basically now says and previously we welcome all comers except for the most reprehensible discriminatory speech and religious speech That's what this program is And why should we understand that to be government speech to say everything's good except religion And several of the justices pointed out that it would be easy for the city to avoid having to fly any and all flags by exercising more control over the process His justice Amy Coney Barrett The city of Boston sits down asks what's going to be expressed and says yes this is an idea that Boston can get behind and a government official participates in the flag raising participates in the ceremony communicating that yes Boston is happy to celebrate and communicate pride in Juneteenth but no Boston is not going to participate in a flag raising for the Proud Boys My guest is First Amendment expert Eugene volley a professor at UCLA law school Eugene what's the central issue here The question that the court is facing is does the city of Boston have to accept really all proposed flat on the theory that it's created a limited public forum where it can't exclude flags for example because their religious in particular claimant here wanted to put up a Christian flag or whether there's no public forum and it is old government speech even when the government puts up other people's flags it's endorsing them And then it gets to pick and choose and it could you know we don't want to endorse Christian flag We don't want to endorse the mother flag and the like So that's the question of the court is facing Is this a limited public forum where do you point discrimination is on constitutional or is government speech in which the government can take and choose which viewpoint Most of the justices seem to be saying that this was not government speech What did they base that on It turns out at least from the argument but I think also from the briefing that very much turns on just how in particular the city has organized this particular program My sense of all the justices agree that the city could say look we're going to be really choosy about which flag we fly You know most cities are only choose to fly flags of the United States at the state of the city So everybody agrees the city could do that The question is whether the city did do that here or whether it took such a lazy attitude Like we put up pretty much everything It's going to be the never rejected some other flag before that it shows that between that and the way that it framed its policies It shows that it deliberately opened up a limited public forum The city argues that flying this flag would amount to a government endorsement of religion and when people look at those flag poles they assume that that's the city of Boston They don't assume that the third pole is a separate organization has nothing to do with the city Well there are two emphasis One is that this question of government endorsement ties in very directly to this broader question that I mentioned which is is that the limited public forum Or is this government speech Because the Supreme Court has made clear that in a limited public forum religious speakers are equally free to participate in part because the very fact that this is a public forum open to all of you pointing means the government isn't endorsing The government doesn't endorse any particular view when it merely complies with its obligation of viewpoint neutrality On the other hand if this is seen as government speech then yes by definition when the government did something it's presumably endorsing it in at least some measure and therefore should be entitled to say well we don't want to endorse religion here So the way the city of Boston has its set up right now Would they have to fly a flag with a swastika on it If the answer is that the city set up a limited public forum the answer is definitely In a limited public forum the city can't discriminate based on viewpoint it can discriminate against pro Nazi views It can discriminate against pro communist views It can discriminate against pro jihadist views So if the city set up this limited public forums and in that case yes it would have to fly the flag which again suggests that if the court says yes in this case the things that city did led to the creation of a limited public forum then from now on old cities including imagine especially Boston will say we're going to try very very hard to avoid creating this limited public forum We're either going to at the end of the practice of flying other people's flags or at least make sure it's sharply sharply limited whether in the formal rule or if it's set up in kind of the discretionary nature of the decision making process where they routinely say look you know I'm sorry we don't want your flag What do you think the decision will be Will it be a unanimous decision You know it's really hard to tell I hate making predictions about that I don't think there was anything really clear or argument as to how the justices will end up interpreting this particular program Again I think there's broad acknowledgment on the courts But not just from our arguments we're past decisions that if it's the limited public forum of course they can't exclude speech based on viewpoint or generally speaking based on its religiosity There's a broad acknowledgment that its government speech and the government gets to pick and choose The real dispute if there will be much dispute on the court will be how do we classify this particular program Maybe it'll be split by four 6 three maybe it'll end up being 9 zero which way exactly it goes I don't know And I'm not sure it matters that terribly much Because again one way or the other I think they'll be plenty of room for cities going forward to set up the flagpole programs in a way that allows them to pick and choose In past cases has the court drawn a clear line between government speech and private speech Not a super clear line by any means There is some gray and the clearest example of that is the son of a confederate veteran license plate design case where the court split sharply slipped by four on the question and maybe got it wrong It's concluded that a program where the state of Texas allowed hundreds of designs for license plates to be submitted by various groups And that was still government speech because traditions that license plate designs were set up by the government and because the public perceptions based in that tradition And so that was a closed case But there are other cases which weren't closed at all So for example the government was trying to prohibit derogatory trademarks as the case involving band called the slan And the court unanimously said well this isn't government speech This is the government promoting private speech in the form of private trademark and therefore can't discriminate things in Newport That was unanimous Likewise in the case that involves being monument of course nearly unanimously said yeah when the city is deciding which monuments to accept for a public park of course that government speech So you've got pretty clear things on both sides of the line and then of course occasionally is with most lines You get some gray areas right next But not a vast amount of gray Thanks Eugene That's Eugene volok.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"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.