35 Burst results for "Amy Cockney"
"amy cockney" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"Have any other songs? Start seaming singing like that when I'm driving in the car there there, Dear Boy, Google the lyrics to that boy. So they mentioned in this little wrap of the Supreme Court. That has been quite the tumultuous year you get RBG passing away, Amy Cockney Barrett filling your vacant seat. Of course, Democrats screaming that she was The reincarnation of the handmade Taylor's some such nonsense as usual, and then you get you. Oh oh, that's right. And there's been a recent two second round of insisting that the court be packed with more justices. And poor Steven Brier. He's a liberal, but he's an old liberal, so liberal America's howling at him to step down so President Biden can Can appoint TOC successor before Biden croaks or, you know, or he loses the next election. Appoint known Chomsky is a Supreme Court justice. E Don't think Biden's gonna be around for the next election, but it's very so it's one of the commissioner. Was that a threat? No, off course not know he's old as hell. He did did that We only will not run again. Guarantee Arch. May you thank you. Oh, but it's funny how the Supreme Court they announced the cases that are gonna be herded. Everybody makes a big deal and sometimes the oral arguments or heard and people that jabber about it that you know the chattering classes and then you forget That they've agreed to hear some of these rules. Some of these cases there are some blockbusters that are going to be handed down in June. Remember the old Sin Joon? Yes, yes, Clearly we are They did the Supreme Court the unleashed bomb after bomb after bomb as they head for the hills. And when is it the end of June? ER in June. Sometimes. Does anybody else somebody check anyway? Here? The five biggest case is still awaiting a decision before they go on their summer recess. Number one voting rule laws. Arizona Republican Party Democratic National Committee have been feuding over ballot laws since before the 2016 election. Riney renewed attention obviously after the 2020 election. Long question requires two things first is that a ballot is thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than the one matching the voters home address. The second is a ban on ballot harvesting California Are you hearing this? Ah, practice in which third party carriers collect absentee ballots and deliver them for counting. So the soups they're going to rule on that. That could be huge. Wanna talk about that more later. The idea of it any measure? To ensure the fidelity of the election is voter suppression. My friends. You need to be ready to counter that argument. They call everything voter suppression moving along. College college athlete compensation. The Supreme Court is going to rule on that. Well, that could change a college sports overnight. Yeah, And you know if I were a betting, man, Wait a minute. I am. I'll bet they rule in favor of the athletes saying that you know you can't deny them the right to earn a living. You know, off their name, their likely or there. What is that? What, my love their likeness. Let's see. Number three big giant case, Religious liberty and gay rights court's legalization of gay marriage in 2015 gave rise to a whole genre of cases in which religious institutions faced off against gay and transgender nondiscrimination regulations in this one. The city of Philadelphia sued Catholic social services of foster care agency runway. The archdiocese after a newspaper investigation found that the group would not place Children with gay couples. The court is likely to rule against Philadelphia after the justices showed skepticism of the city's arguments during oral arguments, etcetera who knows we'll see number four giant case the fate of Obama care No, this is not really we run Obama from 2020 2019 2018 2017 26 by listening to the best of you are, as a matter of fact, welcome. Uh, Bob, above. Uh, this is the future of the affordable care act became a contentious issue. After Trump appointed Barrett Democrats argued, Sweet be the decisive vote. Um, they act they're asking whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional. On gather than straight down. The whole act is a coalition of states led by Texas asked. The justices discussed the possibility of severing the individual mandate from the rest of the act, allowing Obamacare to stand. Not sure which way and nobody sure which one which way? This is going to go, but it will be badly reported when it is decided. And finally, the F bomb spouting cheerleader. We got pissed because she didn't make the varsity team and off campus online unleashed and F bomb laden land. I've hired her as my spokesperson. She's great. This made it to the Supreme Court. It did. Yeah. Yes. Oh, the extent to which free speech rights apply to students outside of school. Um It's it. It's all about speech and school safety and security and decorum. And the rest of it is this. How far can it go? Is this gonna have further ramifications, for instance, like the workplace? You said things away from work on your own private Twitter feed. Oh, wow, That is a good question. I need to read more about the case. Um, it is freedom of speech versus school security and decorum. And ah lot of those arguments could be extended the workplace. Huh? Interesting point. Thank you. Um, we got another little news thing here. That just happened, I think is interesting regarding China. Um And the N ba bi partisan Commission asking NBA players to sever some ties with China fill you in on the details on that, but you know that was we continue to take steps that direction. Dr Gottlieb is out talking about various cities into dropping their mask mandates and how that's a good thing. Luckily, I live in a safe state where we're gonna keep our mask mandate throughout the entire state. Even where there's no covert right. Another several weeks. Just good and sure. Yes, the laws passed by the Legislature. No, I'm sorry. Declared by an individual must be followed as we're following the science of last summer. Um, but all that on the way, Armstrong and get it. Hey,.
"amy cockney" Discussed on KDOW
"Grease. The president is planning to propose nearly doubling taxes on capital gains to almost 40% for people earning more than $1 million and his top economic aid, Brian D. Says that will affect only 3/10 of 1% of U. S households. That's about 500,000 households in the country that we're talking about. The White House says the president wants to use the tax increases to pay for his American Families Plan proposal. Red Clugston Washington University of California San Francisco, officials say a man in his thirties is recuperating after developing a rare blood clot in his leg within two weeks of receiving the one shot Johnson and Johnson vaccine. U. S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of Friday, had reported the condition in 15 people, all women. After eight million doses were administered nationally. The Supreme Court's agreed to hear an appeal to expand gun rights across the country in a New York case over the right to carry a firearm in public for self defense case marks the court's first foray into gun rights since Justice Amy Cockney Barrett came onboard making a 63 conservative majority. The justices said Monday they will review a lower court ruling that upheld New York's restrictive gun permit law. The action follows several mass shootings in recent weeks. The high Court had turned down review of the same issue in June before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is death. New York is among eight states that limit who has the right to carry a gun in public. The others are. California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island. Julie Walker, New York Wall Street down Futures are up 33 points. NASDAQ's in the Green by 17 and the S and P. 500 is ahead.
Senate confirms Merrick Garland as attorney general in 70-30 vote
"News Washington, also in Washington today, veteran federal Judge Merrick Garland is headed to the Justice Department, the A's or 70. The nays are 30 and the nomination is confirmed. The Senate confirmed Garland as attorney general on a bipartisan vote. Garland never got a vote in the Senate after being nominated by President Obama to serve on the Supreme Court. In 2016. Republicans blocked the nomination, arguing that Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled during presidential election years. Republicans reversed course in 2020, confirming federal judge Amy Cockney Barry to the high Court on Lee weeks before
Barrett writes first majority Supreme Court opinion in FOIA dispute
"And Supreme Court Justice Amy Amy Cockney Baron has delivered her first majority opinion for the nation's highest court. This is a case involving the Federal Freedom of Information Act, a PC's Elizabeth Scholesy with more from Washington, in her first opinion as a U. S Supreme Court Justice Amy Cockney Barrett rights on behalf of a 72 majority, saying federal government agencies can refuse to disclose documents related to internal deliberations. As part of an exemption in the Freedom of Information Act. The case involved the environmental group Sierra Club trying to obtain documents from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Steven Brier were the two dissents. Elizabeth Halsey. ABC NEWS
Republicans in Nearly Every State Push For Voting Restrictions in the Aftermath of 2020 Election
"Every state push new voting restrictions in the aftermath of the 2020 election, the U. S. Supreme Court today heard a major case to decide how those rules should be judged under federal civil rights law. Will the court uphold to provision of in Arizona voting law that Democrats argue violate the historic Voting Rights Act? Here's NBC's Alex Push a Well, so the U. S. Supreme Court is looking essentially at a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that's meant to combat racial discrimination in state election laws. So after the 2020 presidential election, we've seen a flurry of Republican state legislators that have made laws that essentially have kind of made it harder to vote. This is, according to the Brennan center, They tallied about 215 bills across the country. But so this particular case did the Supreme Court is hearing is added. Arizona and justices Air grappling how to interpret Section Two of the act, which says any measures that result in the denial or bridge mint of voting rights on account of race or color. Is illegal. Now. The details of this Arizona case there, too, to new laws and one deals with how ballots or cat they disqualified Ballots cast out of precinct, Uh, The other Arizona law prohibits third party collection of mail ballots for delivery to state officials. So the court must decide how and what tests should be used to to determine whether or not this violates that section two. Well, Alex. I know there is an opinion express that these regulations make it harder to vote. But then there will be others that will say no. These regulations will ensure against voter fraud. So you have two different Perspectives on these regulations City? Absolutely. And so I mean, I think this this is going to be you know, the biggest tell for the legacy of former President Trump like appointing conservative justices to the court. The court is now mostly conservative, right. And so we're already starting to see the effects of that and in the arguing on day so I can tell you that earlier today Got this bread cabinet. Also justice any Amy Cockney Barrett are saying that essentially, you know, they believe that these laws don't necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 where you had Justice Sonia sort of my yours? Who's who's arguing otherwise. But we're months away from a decision in this case, but early on, it looks as though these particular laws out of Arizona will stay intact and I'll tell you why. Um, even the Biden administration has conceded that they may not have run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. It seemed as though that can mean the court, which is majority conservative, also sees it that way. Again. There's a lot of time between now and when this case is a question to be decided, decided, which is the end of June, But but early on, it seems as though uh, these laws will probably be upheld. Okay. It's a B C's Alex per shade in Washington. Thank you, Alex for your time today. Thank you, Kitty. All right. 6 50 our final
"amy cockney" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"His new Justice Amy Cockney, Barrett, starting to show an independent streak. Barrett joined three liberal justices late Thursday in an opinion that said Alabama cannot execute a convicted murderer unless he can have his pastor by his side. This came less than a week after she wrote her first solo opinion. Taking a nuance stands on California's covert 19 restrictions on religious services. The two votes together offer early indications that the Trump appointee may be harder to pigeonholed and some had predicted during her rush Senate confirmation process in October. The religious advisor issue has been a rare winner for death row inmates in recent years, but not uniformly. I've been talking to Jordan Reuben Bloomberg law editor. Joined, so there have been several controversial cases involving death row inmates having a religious advisor with them in the chamber when they're executed. One involved a Muslim inmate another A Buddhist inmate. Tell us about them. Sure so In Alabama. This was another case from Alabama. That really said all these this off there was a death row inmate. This is back in 2019. And then Dominique graying. He was executed without his mom in the chamber, and this was after the Supreme Court. Said that he was not entitled to that. And that really caused an outrage and bipartisan outrage is that I think in some ways the court light of thought that it had some egg on its face. And then it reversed course in a sense, and so that's no one's itself to criticism from some circles. Get it on. Lee ruled against that man because he was Muslim Lee. The court had gone on for well more favorably in favor of other religions. And so regardless of that, what we've seen since that Alabama case, and the outrage that it sparked is that the court has changed course and is decided on different grounds and different cases with different justices indicating that they're voting one way or the other, but that on the whole Recording, saying We don't want these executing inmates without religious advisers with them. So now Justice. Bharat is getting some attention because of this decision because she joined with the Liberals, and it's the second time in less than a week that she has not joined with her most conservative colleagues. That's right. And so I think In some ways, it's tough to tell a lot from just a couple of data points. But one thing that it does show is that for people heading into Justice, Paris confirmation who are worried this is going to be a 63 lockstep court on every issue. What we've learned is that at least that's not the case now in These recent cases, these have been decisions that aren't necessarily going to change the course of the laws Take this Death row case that we're talking about. All that's happening here is that this man can have his pastor with him when he's executed. There's no question of whether he's still going to be executed in a recent case on Coca 19, where Barrett didn't join with all of the other Republican appointees, it was to take sort of, um or not moderate approach in terms of how a church could Reopen, but to be clear that it could reopen and allow people in. And so it's certainly no way of saying that Justice Bharat is emerging of some type of liberal, really all things that the court is not going to be a 63 model it in every case. And it's interesting that both these cases that we're talking about Involved religious rites. Sure, And so one way to look at it is that the death penalty case isn't really the best time See case it's religion case and so It's really a consistency on justice Paris part arguably if you look at her decisions that she's consistently sighting in favor of religion, whereas perhaps other justices has been inconsistent on those grounds, and so that is another takeaway that we have from These recent decisions from Justice Bharat and maybe other justices, like Alito and Gorsuch are doing the same. But they did not find it fit to tell us how they voted. In this case, we're less speculating us to them. In a normal case, you get to see how all the justices vote. But in this case you didn't explain again why they're allowed to sort of conceal their opinions. Well as with pretty much everything else about the Supreme Court. They're allowed to do it because they're in charge. And there's no intergalactic Supreme Court that people can appeal to. This is simply how the justices have decided in the reasonable way to operate. When these emergency applications come up. They have to rule when where the other they have to. Making order one way or the other, but they've seen and 50 say that it's not go to the public to say how they voted in a given case, and these are cases that can be just as important, if not sometimes more important than cases that are argued, and justices write lengthy decisions. On the merits, and so just to be clear reason that's been brought up by they don't do that is because this is happening in a very rush nature, and it's happening at the 11th hour. And so some have said that that's the reason why They don't do it. Of course, there's a reason in their head when they make a decision one way or the other. And so I don't think it would necessarily have to be a lengthy decision. But it would be helpful if there was some even short decision. Or at least say which way you voted. That seems Like it would be a reasonable of course to me. I like the intergalactic Supreme Court, and they have to borrow that. Um, uh, s so there's a very controversial case involving religious rights that the Supreme Court heard arguments on but hasn't made a decision in That case might be illuminating, and it involves a clash between religious rights and gay rights. Tell us a little bit about it. Sure cases both in against City of Philadelphia, as you mentioned it is, in some ways the clash between religious rights and gay rights. There's Catholic social services, which Is seeking to not have to work with same sex couples on the grounds that it would violate its religious rights. And so this is another example of the case similar in some ways going back to the court. Masterpiece Cake Shop case that some of us do you remember about the baker who do not want to take it take for a same sex couple that is being argued on religious grounds. People saying they shouldn't have to do things because of their religion, but an effect of the decision if it does go The religious grounds favors that it could have potential adverse effects for LGBT Q. Right. Thanks for being in the Bloomberg Law Show Jordan That's Jordan. Reuben Bloomberg Law editor. Should be remembered that Barrett's record overall since her October confirmation suggests she will generally sign with conservative wing in ideological divisive cases. 5 to 4 decision earlier this month, siding with the railroad workers seeking disability benefits. Bear was in dissent with Justices Thomas Alito and Gorsuch. She also joined the majority in November, when the court voted 5 to 4 to block strict capacity limits on churches and synagogues in New York City. In that case, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Liberals in dissent coming up next on the Bloomberg Long Show, a district attorney who was just sworn in last month has entered the national spotlight. With her investigation into whether former President Donald Trump should face charges for attempting to pressure George's elections chief into changing the results of the presidential race in his favor. All indications are a will be a wide ranging investigation. Remember,.
Alabama cancels execution after court requires pastor
"In Alabama is on hold. The U. S. Supreme Court says the prisoners pastor must be allowed inside the death the death chamber during the lethal injection. Kyle Gass it with Troy. Public Radio says the inmate had been scheduled to die yesterday for killing the sister of a police officer in Birmingham, Willoughby. Smith was sentenced to death in 1991 and asked that his pastor be with him at the time of his execution. Smith said his pastor would provide comfort by quote, holding his hand praying with him in his final moments and easing the transition between the worlds of the living and the dead. The state of Alabama denied Smith's request, citing safety concerns and a new policy, which bars spiritually advisers of any kind from being in the room. A lower appeals court overturned that decision and the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court We're joined by conservative Justice Amy Cockney Barrett and upholding the injunction and stay of execution. For NPR News. I'm Kyle Gass it in Montgomery. Authorities in Germany and
"amy cockney" Discussed on KTTH 770AM
"State's Health Department shows. 15,000 New York Nursing home patients died from the virus. The New York Post reporting that Melissa Derosa secretary to the governor, told leading states Democrats during a video conference call The Cuomo administration withheld data from the nursing home deaths to avoid scrutiny by the Justice Department, New York Republican Party chairman Nick Langworthy, saying prosecution and impeachment discussions must begin right away. House Democrats have concluded two days of prosecuting their impeachment impeachment case against former President Trump lead impeachment manager representative Jamie Raskin, asking in his closing arguments and generate six. Why did President Trump would not at any point that day condemn the violent insurrection and the insurrectionists? The president's defense team has two days beginning today to present their case. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, one of the jurors Telling Fox News at night. There's no chance of the Senate conviction in two days in 16 hours of presenting their case, they haven't come remotely close to demonstrating that President Trump's conduct Violated the law that it constituted incitement vote She of the Senate is expected early next week. Ah federal appeals court and then the U. S. Supreme Court blocking Alabama from lethal Lee injecting Willie B. Smith last night. For murder committed in 1991 the court's ruling that a state ban on personal clergy in the death chamber good violate his rights to religious freedom. Justice Amy Cockney barrettes, joining in the ruling to allow a lower court's injunction against the execution to stand.
"amy cockney" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"You know he's doing what doing way love being outdoors. Was riding a snow mobile with a friend when they were hit by the Avalanche. I'm Brian should You're listening to Bloomberg Law With Jeweled Russell from Bloomberg Radio. I've been talking to Professor Rick Karr. Net of Notre Dame all school about a divided Supreme Court ordering California to let indoor worship services resume and a group of suing churches in a 6 to 3 decision, the court rule for religious rites and ordered California to allow indoor church services to resume at a group of churches who were suing. Easing restrictions that state officials said were necessary to stem the spread of the Corona virus. Under restrictions imposed in July by Governor Gavin Newsom, California barred indoor worship services as well as indoor dining, movie screenings and other gatherings in counties designated as Tier one because of Hiko Vin numbers. The order stopped short of abolishing the covert restrictions altogether, saying the state could impose a 25% capacity cap it church services, and the justices also allowed California to continue to ban singing and chanting at indoor services. The justices split four ways in the case on one end, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neal Gorsuch said they would have blocked all of the restrictions. On the other end. Justice Elena Kagan, Steven Brier in Sonia Sotomayor said they would have left all the restrictions in place. The court's order reinforces an earlier Supreme Court decision that blocks trick capacity limits in New York as violating constitutionally protected religious rites. This is Justice. Amy Cockney barrettes first separate opinions and she's been on the bench and it was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. So why did she write a separate opinion? Yeah, it's very technical point. Her view and just Cavanaugh agreed, was that they didn't have enough evidence. The record is wasn't developed enough to be able to conclude That the limits on singing that were being applied to religious gatherings were neutral that this is a basic requirement. Federal constitutional laws that religious exercise can't be singled out for worse treatment than comparable secular activities. And one of the arguments in this case was that well, you know, people are allowed to sing inside another context, you can thing in your house. And there was some question about whether in the entertainment industry and the recording industry that people were still being allowed to Being indoors. But Justus parents point We just We don't have enough evidence yet to be able to say that California's treating secular singing better than religious scenes. So she in Kavanaugh and then by extension, the three more liberal justices to Willing to leave in place the limits on indoor singing as part of these gatherings. Ah, lot of people are pointing to this opinion. And saying, Oh, Justice Bharat. Maybe she's not as conservative as we thought. She's not as conservative as Clarence Thomas, for example. Yeah, I've heard some of that. I guess I would just urge people to think critically about these labels and how they apply the cases involving fundamental rights. It's not obvious to me that it's conservative rather than the rule to want to protect religious exercise rights. And in the other point, we just be that the disagreement that justice spirit and just Cavanaugh had with just a score, such as opinion is not a particularly big one of all nine justices, including justice, Kegan. They all agree that religious exercise is important, and they all agree that government hand target religious activities for burdensome regulations. Disagreement really has to do with the amount of difference the court should give to government officials when government officials claim that regulations are necessary and the disagreement is just about which activities are really comparable to others in the church service, more like a concert, or is it more like going to home Depot? That kind of thing? These disagreements are their significant, but I don't believe they're dramatic ideological differences. They reflect, Maura. I think Just a difference of opinion about how to interpret the factual record. You know, I think when I see injustice Paris opinion is not an attack on what, Just of course, which is saying, But it's just coming to a different conclusion. A different inference about some disputed facts. And now what about Justice Roberts opinion? We'll take him to be pretty much on the same page as Justices Barrett and Cavanaugh that is Some of the California he goes out of his way to say yes, of course, it's true that deference to public Officials, especially when you're dealing with an emergency is important. And of course, it's true that you know, in in good judicial conservative style that judges shouldn't be in the business of thinking that they can second guess all policy decisions so he wants to do you want to make that very clear? But then he just he points to the kind of extreme out liar nature of California's reflection that That, you know, even in the the huge Los Angeles Catholic Cathedral, which could seat you know, thousands of people. You still can't have any in person worship? He just does. He doesn't think that the record reflects California's actually exercising. Epidemiology, Epidemiological, uh, judgment, but instead, it just kind of again doing a rubber stamp and taking the easy way out and imposing a blanket restriction. So that's why, um Hi. He does when he does. He wants to make a very clearly doesn't think judges can or should micromanage local governments, responses to diseases. Um But again, he's being down a marker that at some point, judicial scrutiny is crucial when you have regulations that appeared to be disregarding fundamental rights. Justice Elena Kagan wrote an opinion for the Liberals, and it was really impassioned and seemed to be critical of her colleagues or conservative colleagues. In a way she doesn't usually do. Justice. Kagan is a great writer has always and I do think it was a certain amount of passion and kind of urgency that comes through in her dissent. I don't think it crossed any lines in terms of not being respectful. I mean, I think she tends to always observe that line but basically hurt. Disagreement is not on the importance of religious exercise. You know, she opens her opinion by saying, Yeah, of course, you can't treat religious exercise worse than you treat comparable secular activities. But her two main themes are first we should beam or deferential to California state officials. And again. This is a disagreement with Gorsuch, who's saying looking yes, Some difference is important, but we're talking about fundamental rights. We don't just defer to the cops. When it comes to you know whether or not they have toe respect, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights. And so he wants to spend sister. We can't just defer to the government when it says that these regulations are necessary for the first disagreement is on the theme of difference. She thinks the course not being deferential enough, and she has several lines and paragraphs where she kind of challenges. You kind of poke the justices, but they're being activist and the second history would have to do with the comparison points. She thinks church services. Indoor religious gatherings are not comparable to things like going to the Home depot going shopping going to a grocery store, and so on. So she thinks the religious gatherings are not being treated worse than comparable secular gatherings. Whereas the justices who were in the majority did think that religious gatherings are being treated worse, in my own view, I don't think justice Kagan took enough account of justice Gorsuch is Point that California doesn't seem to have been very flexible that again. If you're worried about singing indoors, and it seems to be the bed is something to worry about. You can simply say no singing during religious gathering, or if you're worried about people like close proximity you can require distancing again. Just discourses concern was California kind of taken the easy way out. Just the blanket, No gatherings proposal and he doesn't want to defer to that. But Justice Kagan death. The case seems to be following the New York case last November, after Justice Bharat joined the court in which the court barred capacity limits on houses of worship. Ah, change of direction from prior cases on that issue and more expansive of religious rights. So do you see this case as being a step further? I don't think it's so much a step further from the Brooklyn case, But I do think that these covert restriction cases as a general matter have been fascinating because they do suggest I think that the court's free exercise doctrine is moving from where itwas, you know, 30 years ago in the famous Smith case. It does suggest, And this is relevant to the upcoming Gardocki adoption case. The Fulton case then that you've been following. It appears that you know, there's a majority of justices who are willing.
"amy cockney" Discussed on KCRW
"So the suit here is saying, Look, Fox news you had people on you knew what they were going to save both your employees, even if they were on the opinion side and the gas into again. We're not looking at title we're looking at was the statement itself a statement of fact, and that's what can give rise to a liability here. Although Fox News is a media company, so You know some people who might not agree with Fox news or with this whole argument that which is alive that the election was stolen are a little leery about this kind of lawsuit going forward on, you know, in terms of protecting the press and from First Amendment grounds. Oh, absolutely. I mean, we're seeing so many more defamation suits than we used to, and against the entity, Thies against the groups that as you say, we should be most worried about when it comes to a defamation suit. Look, we have a really strong first remember tradition in our country defamation by definition, punishes speech. Now on the other side, we're really at a breaking point in terms of determining where the protection for the First Amendment ends, particularly when it comes to disinformation, and it may be depending on what happens in this case. This is the new frontier for fighting disinformation that it's these court suits, and it's trying to push private companies like Twitter to shut down accounts that it's not legislation. It's not regulation. It's asking judges to say this falls within defamation, and so this really, I think is a big bellwether case. Interesting. OK, well, let's talk about the Supreme Court, partially striking down California's restrictions on indoor religious services, and the justices were split on this, but they let endorse services go forward with a 25% restriction. They're not allowed. People aren't allowed to sing or chant. And there was a lot of debate over over that within the conservative wing of the court. Tell us about that really quickly. Yes. Oh, really quickly there. Nine justices. There are five different opinions. And what you saw from the conservative side is either churches will give you everything you want. Meaning none of these three restrictions air Okay or churches? You know what You can have people inside. But you need to go through certain measures that capacity limits and the limit on singing and chanting. And that middle ground ultimately is what won the day really interesting to see, though on the spectrum of the conservative justices, where everybody came out really interesting to see Justice Amy Cockney Barrett's first written and signed opinion, where she does actually tread somewhat. In the conservative spectrum, a middles a middle of fresh right and she is a conservative Catholic, so one would have thought she would have cited more with the conservatives on this fully But she certainly left the door open to do so. So this was hardly a moderate opinion, I would say, But she did say, Look, you have to prove it, she said. I'm waiting for more evidence. If you treat churches in a more burdensome way than you treat secular institutions. This is not okay. So her quote unquote middle ground was just I want to see more before I make a decision. Jessica Levinson, law professor at Little, a law school in a regular legal eagle..
"amy cockney" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Tonight. It's KQED public radio lows to not expected thirties to mid forties. It's all things considered from NPR news. I'm Mary Louise Kelly and I'm Ari Shapiro. When President Joe Biden took the oath of office this morning, he placed his hand on a thick, warn brown leather Bible. It's a family heirloom he's carried throughout his political career. President Biden is Catholic, and he wears his faith more publicly than many presidents. He often quotes the Bible and Catholic thought in speeches as he did today. I promise you this is the Bible says we be may endure for a night. But Joy cometh in the morning. We will get through this together together. Reverend James Martin is a Jesuit priest and editor at large of America magazine, and he joins us to talk more about the president's speech and how faith informs Biden's leadership. Good to have you here. Good to be here. Before we get to the language of the speech. Tell us broadly where you see Biden's Catholic faith manifest over the last 24 hours. Well, hey, started off the day with mass at ST Matthew's conceived cathedral with a friend of his Kevin O'Brien, a Jesuit. He had a Jesuit priest, Leo O'Donovan, do the invocation. He Sprinkled as you said, Catholic references it it really is part of who he is. I don't think you can separate Joe Biden from his Catholic faith, so it's z part of his life. Well in that speech. There wasn't a lot of Scripture quoted. But I do want to ask you about this moment many centuries ago, saying Augusta, a saying in my church wrote that the people was a multitude. Defined by the common objects of their loan, and then he went on to list those common objects that Americans love. Opportunity. Security, liberty, dignity, etcetera. I understand you think that line makes this a very Catholic speech. Explain why? Well, it's not every day that you were here, Santa Guston quoted and Inauguration address. I was with my Jesuit brothers watching it and we all sort of our eyebrows went up. It's it's he could have just talked about. We need to work together. But instead, he brought in ST Augustine. I think the whole speech was pretty Catholic. Though it was. It was around that the notion of the common good, which is part of Catholic social teaching, so I would say explicitly and implicitly. It was a Catholic speech. Explain that idea of the common good and why it is so central to Catholicism. Well, because it's more than just the individual is, um, that we tend to think about in the United States than in terms of blessed, they faire capitalism. It's not just every person for himself or herself. It's working towards something that is common on its mean contributing something to the common good to society, and that sometimes can be seen at odds with sort of rugged individualism. But, you know, I think Biden is a president Biden was rightto raise it especially Today, when we're facing pandemic and all sorts of other problems. President Biden's deep Catholic faith is well known, and it's very different from someone like Justice Amy Cockney Barrett or the Catholic voters who supported President Trump. Can you talk about that? Sure, it's a big church Catholics. The Catholic Church is not a monolith. And so we have Catholics who are Democrats and Republicans who are progressive and traditional who are conservative and liberal and I would say that Amy Cockney Barrett's Catholicism. They're both Catholic, and they're both sincere in their Catholicism's stresses some things and not other things, or and the same with the president Biden so You know the on the fundamentals, they agreed, but it's a different way of being Catholic. I would say, Would you say that one approach is the minority in American Catholicism today? That's a good question. I might say half and half. I think that the shall we say the more traditionalist side has been more active and perhaps more You want to say loud, but maybe a public about their faith, and I think people tend to forget about the progressive side. That I think President Biden probably more fully reflects than justice parents. Let me also ask you about the public response or lack thereof to Biden's Catholic faith. I was not alive to cover the Kennedy presidential campaign, but I understand it was a very big deal when he ran for office and so much less so right now. Yes. And you know President Kennedy? I was. I think I was one year old. When that happened. President Kennedy was forced to go before a group of Protestant pastors and say explicitly, the Vatican will not tell me what to do. Oh, there was this fear that you know, the pope was just going to call him up and tell him what to do. And Catholics since then, have been really acculturated into Into American culture. And so I don't I don't think people there might be some anti Catholicism. But for the most part, people say, Well, these Catholic, he's Christian. And so that's fine with me. There's not as much virulent anti Catholicism that he had to address Finally, How do you think President Biden's faith will inform his leadership over the next four years? Well, certainly his faith and Jesus is going to help him, You know, look at problems with the poor. Hopefully, you know he'll be considering what Pope Francis had said on the environment and on other issues. I think you're also going to see a more Catholic culture. I think you know, references to the saints to the sisters. He knew to going to Mass. You know, President Biden is someone who speaks of personally very frequently, and a big part of his personal life is his faith. And so you don't get ready for it least four years of more Catholic culture. That is Reverend James Martin, editor at large of American magazine and a Jesuit priest. Thank you for speaking with us today. My pleasure. On this inaugural day. We're checking in with some of the people we have heard from over these past four years to find out what they hope for in the next four years. I'm Carla Hilliard. I'm a high school English teacher in Martinsburg, West Virginia. I spoke to NPR a few years ago at the one year anniversary of the West Virginia teacher and service personnel strikes. I hope to get my students back and class can't wait to see them again. I can't wait for my own Children to go back to school and start experiencing all of the things that they're missing right now that we're missing collectively as a community and as a society. I hope that we rediscover ourselves and rediscover our communities. But I'm teaching inaugural poets this week. I love my Angelou's. It's called on the pulse of morning at the very end of it, she says, and I'm paraphrasing. I hope we can look in our country's face and say with hope. Good morning, and I just heard that this morning on a call with my 11th graders, and I thought, man what a wonderful message to look at one another toe look into our communities to look into our country and say with hope..
"amy cockney" Discussed on KQED Radio
"It's all things considered from NPR news. I'm Mary Louise Kelly and I'm Ari Shapiro. When President Joe Biden took the oath of office this morning, he placed his hand on a thick, warn brown leather Bible. It's a family heirloom he's carried throughout his political career. President Biden is Catholic, and he wears his faith more publicly than many presidents. He often quotes the Bible and Catholic thought in speeches as he did today. And I promise you this, as the Bible says we be may endure for a night. But Joy cometh in the morning. We will get through this together together. Reverend James Martin is a Jesuit priest and editor at large of America magazine. And he joins us to talk more about the president's speech. And how faith informs Biden's leadership. Good to have you here. Good to be here before we get to the language of the speech. Tell us broadly where used to Biden's Catholic faith manifest over the last 24 hours. Well, hey, started off the day with mass at ST Matthew's conceived cathedral with a friend of his Kevin O'Brien, a Jesuit. He had a Jesuit priest, Leo O'Donovan, do the invocation. He Sprinkled as you said, Catholic references it it really is part of who he is. I don't think you can separate Joe Biden from his Catholic faith, So it's Z part of his life. Well, in that speech, there wasn't a lot of Scripture quoted. But I do want to ask you about this moment. Many centuries ago. ST Augusta, A saying in my church wrote that the people was a multitude defined by the common objects of their love. And then he went on to list those common objects that Americans love. Opportunity. Security. Liberty, dignity, etcetera. I understand you think that line makes this a very Catholic speech. Explain why Well, it's not every day that you hear. ST Augustine quoted and Inauguration address I was with my Jesuit brother is watching it and we all sort of our eyebrows went up. It's it's he could have just talked about. We need to work together. But instead, he brought in ST Augustine. I think the whole speech was pretty Catholic. Though it was. It was around that the notion of the common good, which is part of Catholic social teaching, so I would say explicitly and implicitly. It was a Catholic speech. Explain that idea of the common good and why it is so central to Catholicism. Well, because it's more than just the individual is, um, that we tend to think about in the United States than in terms of laissez faire capitalism. It's not just every person for himself or herself. It's working towards something that is common on its means contributing something to the common good to society, and that sometimes can be seen at odds with sort of rugged individualism. But, you know, I think Biden is a president Biden was rightto raise it especially Today, when we're facing pandemic and all sorts of other problems. President Biden's deep Catholic faith is well known, and it's very different from someone like Justice Amy Cockney Barrett or the Catholic voters who supported President Trump. Can you talk about that? Sure, it's a big church Catholics. The Catholic Church is not a monolith. And so we have Catholics who are Democrats and Republicans who are progressive and traditional who are conservative and liberal. And I would say that Amy Cockney Barrett's Catholicism. They're both Catholic, and they're both sincere in their Catholicism's Stresses some things and not other things, or on the same with President Biden. So you know the on the fundamentals, they agreed, but it's a different way of being Catholic. I would say, Would you say that one approach is the minority in American Catholicism today? That's a good question. I might say half and half. I think that the Shall we say the more traditionalist side has been more active and perhaps more. I want to say loud, but maybe a public about their faith..
"amy cockney" Discussed on WDUN AM550
"I want to know what he threw away. Well, that's a That's an interesting point. And I think I don't I don't know the answer to that. I mean, what I can tell you is there were certain people, namely Mike Deaver and Nancy Reagan, who if they thought he was going Too far to the edge. Ah, they would say, you know, they would say, Pull it back a little. And I think that there were people that he did listen to, um, but I think one of the one of the difficult things that we're dealing with that ideal within false light. Is how an allegation can can get out of control. I mean, I I have the last book I wrote, which was a non fiction story about two spies called Best of enemies. I wrote during the time of the Trump investigation about about Russia and I have been telling people for a long time that I don't believe the I reject the idea. That Trump is being controlled by the Kremlin. Even though I'm not a particular fan of the Santis is, but I think that the story is too good. Just like when Amy Cockney Barrett was facing approval. The idea that she was part of a cult that where sex on demand, and so there is a market for this, and a lot of what I do in the book is exploit the fact If there is a market for a certain narrative, that market will be met, and there are no referees to stop anyone from spreading rumors. Eric doesn't hold. The book is false Slide. It's coming out in February. And as all of Eric's books, they are great reads. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank Martha. Thank you, and we are about two hours away from the Trump presidency ending Um, how do you feel about that?.
"amy cockney" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Nominal damages case. I know of in recent times, which is Taylor Swift sexual assault case, you know that one. Vaguely. Taylor Swift did not have the case at the Supreme Court. But a case before the court on campus speech rights reminded Justice Elena Kagan of Swift, successful suit in 2015 against a Denver radio host for sexual harassment, where the pop star asked for only a dollar in damages. And she said, I'm not really interested in your money. I just want a dollar and that dollar is going to represent something both to me and to the world of women who have experienced What I've experienced, Cagan said. Swifts case was similar to the case before the court, where two former students are suing Georgia Gwinnett College for nominal damages for violating their First Amendment rights and Joe's Does Amy Cockney. Barrett seemed to agree. And Justice Kagan's questions suggest said that really what Taylor Swift wanted was, you know, vindication of the moral right. The legal right. That's sexual assault is reprehensible and wrong. My guest is Harold Print, a professor of the Chicago And College of law. How first tell us a little bit about the case. The case is a first amendment challenged by students to their college administrators for limiting the right of free speech. Had to do with someone who's they? Evangelical Christian who wanted to talk about he preaches is faith and the university quenched the speech here for that precipitated a First Amendment challenge. In court and before could be finally resolved. The we classified where students could make speeches and broaden the opportunity for students. So, in essence, handing the plaintiffs of victory, But then the question was, could they continue to get a court resolution that they were right under the Constitution? And would be entitled of these two nominal damages and attorneysfees. And so far the 11th circuit had held that the case was moved because there's no longer a continuing controversy because the university had changed his policy and that the idea of just the period treason. Nominal damages would not be enough to keep the case alive so that refused the address demerits. Does the government or government entities often change policy following lawsuits, the government does not infrequently change its policies. And indeed, a great example of that came up recently when New York City had an active, very tight gun control legislation, which was challenging. They fought it tooth and nail. As it was getting close to the Supreme Court. New York City back down and said, Well, maybe this was too restrictive and therefore essence moved out that controversy, giving plaintiffs all that they wanted and the Supreme Court that case. Refused to entertain the case by saying it was moved because New York changes politician was not likely to go back to the strict gun control policy that has been challenged. So this in some way to their cousin case in the sense that it asked what happens when the government changes in policy not likely to revert to the older policy. Can. A court nonetheless continued to hear the substance of the claim because it's kept alive by this notion off nominal damages, so it's a narrow case focusing on what really is nominal damages. And should the judges have power to consider Mork constitutional claims in particular, if nominal damages are alleged in the case, before we get back to nominal damages, people might ask. Well, why doesn't that case from last term where the justices said it was mood? Why doesn't that control here? It's going to be in the justices mind in that case, nominal damages were not sought. And so there was not an argument that the case was still alive because of nominal damages, as there are in the Georgia case, But certainly with this case is about it's about judicial power. Should judges be able to second guess scrutinize. More governmental bodies, actions, then the otherwise we would be able to. The problem is, it's hard to quantify First Amendment speech. In our occasion, the plaintiff wasn't allowed to speak. How do you put a dollar value on that? Maybe you could say he had to walk 15 minutes to a different form, And that would cost time and time is money. And maybe you should said the cost me $35 and I could otherwise be making In order to go to the other form to give my speech and the courts would entertain that they'd have to. It's a traditional $35 injury, Isn't it? More practical to say we know that the restriction on speech Damaged you. You couldn't speak. It's hard for dollar figure on that. So vindicate your claim by just saying if a nominal damages and that's why this has become really a very intriguing Case because it doesn't fall really on a conservative versus liberal winds. Exactly. It follows with the question of how much power should judges have to superintendent second guess an administration will be the bag administration, the Trump Administration. So I think that's the access under which the decision was reached in the case, And this case has groups that are often on opposite sides of Supreme Court cases. Uniting there were just two amicus briefs in support of the university. How hard is that? It's very unusual, and I think any kind of interest group that challenges governmental action knows that its ability to get cases heard before the court depend upon a vehicle for keeping a case alive and nominal damages is such a vehicle because it recognizes that there are dignitary harms caused by when the government violates your constitutional rights, even if they're not quantifiable. I mean, they were dignitary harms of common law trespass violation. Someone's trademark and private individuals would get some kind of damage is even if you couldn't prove actual damages. Coming up. So how might the justices rule? This is Bloomberg. It's the eye like a bed. That's really firm. I.
"amy cockney" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"And again. It's not just the abortion pill that is subject to Certain heightened restrictions and and it varies, You know, from drug to drive. A lot of them are perhaps cancer drugs, or maybe people are familiar with Accutane. But there's I believe that this time over 70 different drugs right now that are subject to some sort of Additional restriction like the abortion pill is they don't just do that for no reason, And so for the abortion lobby to essentially try to come in and say that they know better. Then, you know, 20 years worth of scientists talking about this that the FDA is pretty brazen. However, like I said, We also know the abortion lobby is going to be pressuring the Biden administration Tol remove these restrictions anyway. We know they're working with the transition to try to make it happen, And so it's going to be something that All Americans need to be concerned about it is. It is very noteworthy, though, considering this is the first decision this Supreme Court since the UM addition of Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. It's the first decision that is in any way related to the abortion issue and that I think it is encouraging to see that it not only Went on the side of life. But it was a 6 to 3 vote as well. That's I think a tangible, tangible and noteworthy development coming out of the four year Trump administration. We gotta leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us the great stuff. Thank you Have a good day. Melanie, Israel of the Heritage Foundation. It's for 15. W e, mail, traffic.
"amy cockney" Discussed on WSB-AM
"Has the doctor. You've been very inspiring to the listeners. A lot of love. Yes. Well, come on, Shucks, guys, come on. A V H, You're talking good this morning, my brother. Say what you're saying. Thank you. I was talking about yesterday morning or this morning. He signed by yesterday morning specific. Our somber show the von Hessler doctrine on a very special von Hessler doctrine. All the comedy goes away. And the host. Just speak soberly to you for three hours. I'm sure some people tuned in to win. Okay. Like I need another guy telling me how to think they come on back today, but most people I think, enjoyed it. I thought it was important yesterday to be Sober voice, not hyperbolic. I see here that CNN had his biggest ratings ever on Wednesday. You know, I don't watch television news at all. Yes, I'm Wednesday. Obviously I tuned in just to see what was going on. But you know what? I'm not like yesterday. I wasn't in the mood for more. I already knew what he didn't do it. This is what TV news does. Well, let's have a bunch of people pontificate for hours upon stuff. Oh, yeah, I'm a person. I have a brain. I saw What happened. I digested it. I don't need no, it's when these 24 hour news network, just the stories get the legs. And you know, I guarantee you that most of the days Hey, look, it was we all understand? You know, we need another pundit to come in and tell us why it was wrong. We understand why it was wrong. Most reasonable, sane people in this country got it within the first minute and a half. I have to think that with that speech last night and listening to Kelly Leffler, after a while, just about everybody finally got just how horrific that was. But the worst thing in the world is that CNN got their best ratings on Wednesday because you tune in next Wednesday, and they'll still be pundit panels talking about this, then it'll be the whole stuff. But look, I believe the president deserves impeachment. Don't get me wrong, but there's 12 days left. These things are processes. The 25th amendment has a whole process to it. The president has the right to respond. This is all just political rhetoric. What you gonna do you for impeachment? You have to first draw up the articles. You have to debate that. You have to argue that you gotta aren't you gotta vote on it. Then if that gets voted up, then they gotta send it over to the Senate. You got to figure out who's gonna be the prosecutor who's gonna be the fender. Then there has to be a trial. There's 12 days. Like what do you do? Impeach him 24 hours before his his term, and I've just seems kind of silly. They should do. I've heard about similarities between like how they ran through Amy Cockney Barrett and I guess they could do that process and I'm not. I don't know how they could. I don't think that was less than 12 days. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't like 12 days. I think Pelosi. This is, you know it's politics, and that's just the way that it is. But now it's at the point of people trying to fund raise and get more stuff. So people want to hear Pelosi say that she's going to impeach the president. But I mean the process takes too long. You know, I will repeat myself. I believe he does. I mean, if there were three months left in this presidency, there's no doubt in my mind that after what happened on Wednesday, he would be impeached. There would be enough Republican votes in the Senate. To remove him from office. No doubt about it, But I guess I have to back up here, I suppose. For Pelosi, there's enough time for them to impeach because impeachment The president is already been impeached once impeachment is what the House does, but there's no time for a trial. There's no time for removal. So even if they do it, it's just like a harsher form of censure. Right, So you know it's but at this point, it's just political rhetoric, you know? Remember this politicians Are vultures, and so they're going to come over and pick over the carcass. The last thing in the world they're going to do is try to do things that hell and bring people back together. There's hell. There's elections to be one. There's money to be raised. And this applies to both sides is just that Trump and the Trumpers Decided to give one late Christmas gift to the left to the Democrat Party, and so they want to take advantage of this is Greg ready to go or she's not ready to go. He's not ready to go while I'll be I'll be darned. We have another open mic. Yes, again. The love continues. Eric. Hey, guys, this is Tracy from Acworth. I just.
"amy cockney" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Every American and we made religious freedom of priority in the foreign policy goals off our administration on the world stage. Now, you all may remember the last administration was different. Last administration trampled on the religious liberty of Americans on a regular basis. It's true, they compromised the conscience rights of doctors and nurses and religious charities. The last administration even hauled a group of Catholic nuns into federal court to force him to compromise their faith. To live under the federal mandates of Obamacare. Incredible. In fact, we saw that religious intolerance in high relief. Just a few short years ago when Amy Cockney Barrett went before the Judiciary Committee for her first nomination to the federal courts, Do you remember the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Actually said that she was concerned about how sincere Amy Cockney barrettes, Christian faith Woz, she said, and I quote the dogma lives loudly within you and Hollywood liberals have been attacking Amy Cockney barrel for her faith and her values ever since. Well, I got a message for the Democrats in Washington and their friends in Hollywood. Dogma lives loudly in May..
"amy cockney" Discussed on WSB-AM
"I'm Dr Joe Esposito. You are listening to 2020 on WSB. Here's J. Black. Thank you, man and 2020 sauce. Fight way too many opponents. So why not throw in the discovery of an insect that seems prehistoric? They're voracious predators of honeybees earner Hornets from Asia arrive in the U. S. But so far the two inch death Have been contained. The Washington stink and now we continue our countdown of the top 15 stories of 2020 with Amanda Boy Number eight the U. S and Iran approached the brink of war. January. 8th. Iran fires missiles at two U. S. Bases in Iraq to retaliate for the killing of a high ranking member of Iran's military. The White House responds with new economic sanctions Number seven. The death of Congressman John Lewis, You must find a way to get in trouble. Look. Some of Lewis passes away July 17th from pancreatic cancer, horse drawn case and carries his casket over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, The civil rights icon becomes the first African American lawmaker to lie in state at the U. S. Capitol. Number six, the Atlantic hurricane season racks up a record 30 named Storms, six of them. Major. Atlanta is under tropical storm warnings for only the second time when Zeta rolls through in late October Number five. It's called Total acquittal. It's the third impeachment trial in U. S history. President Trump is charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He is acquitted by the Senate in February. Number four another Supreme Court shakeups and privileged to be asked to serve my country in this office. October 26th Amy Cockney Bharat becomes the fifth woman to become an associate justice following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, its president. Trump's third appointment to the high Court number three. Protests over the death of George Floyd in Minnesota sweep across America. If you care about this city, then go home riots break out in Atlanta on May 29th is the fight over racial injustice reaches an intensity that harkens back to the sixties. Number two. I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide Unify. Joe Biden is elected the 46, president of the United States in November. President Trump Challenges the election results in court and loses nearly every case. Inauguration Day is January 20th fourth, There is no surprise that will top that countdown. Amanda looks.
"amy cockney" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM
"Issue before you can. I have done that in my time on the seventh circuit, But Barrett stood her ground Barrett leveled with the senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I just can't just wake up one day and say I have an agenda. I like guns. I hate guns. I like abortion. I hate abortion and walk in like a royal queen and imposed their will on the world, she said. They have to wait for cases and controversies, which they interpret. Barrett was also grilled on Obama care, since the high court is deciding a case on it soon and would not Commit to recusing herself from hearing the case of confirmed when asked by Senate Democrats, But eventually the questioning was over. The moment came, it was time to vote the ayes or 52. The nays or 48. The vote Kelly, mostly along party lines to confirm bear it to the Supreme Court. Your senators Mike Brown and Todd Young, both voting to confirm Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the only Republican to join every Democrat in voting. No. Barrett was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas soon after the votes that privileged to be asked to serve my country in this office, she's an alumna of Notre Dame, Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins, calling her confirmation a momentous achievement. Barrett joins Chief Justice John Roberts says. One of two Hoosiers to currently sit on the high court from RBG Toe. A CB for hindsight, 2020. I'm Donny Burgess and curtains. Shyla. Maybe you can talk about this for a minute, one of the consequences. Of father John Jenkins going to that big to do at the White House where President Trump introduced Amy Cockney Barrett as the nominee? Well, yeah, if you remember he went to the to the To the Rose Garden, and he was not wearing a mask. Where's along with many other people there, And, of course, that had some pretty far fetching ramifications for the students back at Notre Dame. We were basically on him on his case about not wearing a mask, and he ended up getting coronavirus. Yep, I want to talk to another consequence of this lot of people were saying Amy Cockney Barrett should recuse herself when it comes time for election challenges. And as the election challenges have come to the Supreme Court, if you will notice, there has been no dissent as far as the Supreme Court throwing those election challenges out. So it looks like a least according to Ah, to this particular subject matter, Amy Cockney. Barrett has proven herself a person of her word. As far as You know not to. Not being partial to the president who nominated her for the position. I'm personally just very interested to see how Amy Kuney Barrett's positioning on the Supreme Court affect issues that are pertinent to both sides of the political spectrum, because, as you said, it appears that she has remained true to her word. But I remember speaking to Dr Laura Wilson you nd on. She said that her placement would more than likely result in a clash of ideologies. Regardless s O. I'm just very intrigued to see where that goes from here coming up, But my luck Yes, Indiana's fortune..
"amy cockney" Discussed on 710 WOR
"Stood stood for all of us have millions of people who looked up to her justice. Ginsburg wrote landmark opinions that advanced gender equality and writes for disabled Americans and immigrants. Days before her death, she dictated the statement to her granddaughter, saying her most fervent wish was to not be replaced before a new president was installed. President Trump did not grant that wish. I have a constitutional obligation to put in nine judges. So justices he nominated Amy Cockney Barrett, a Notre Dame academic and a judge on the seventh U. S Circuit Court of Appeals, one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds. Democrats balked at the time they are ramming through for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. President Trump's nominee. In a rush and partisan process in the midst of an ongoing presidential election. This process is undemocratic. Republican colleagues are rushing to confirm Judge Barrett in a hypocritical in legitimate process. Republican shredded past pronouncements and the Senate voted 52 to 48 in favor of confirming Judge Barrett as an associate justice to the Supreme Court when there's a nominee of the party That is in the same in the same party as the Senate then. Typically, they do confirm what this administration and this Republican Senate has done. His exercise. Power that was given to us by the American people. Precedent is clear for.
"amy cockney" Discussed on WSB-AM
"And talk. Everyone. I'm Alan Sanders. And I'm Dr Joe Esposito. You are listening to 2020 on WSB. Here's J. Black. Thank you, man and 2020 sauce. Fight way too many opponents. So why not throw in the discovery of an insect that seems prehistoric? They're voracious Predators of honeybees. Murder Hornets from Asia arrive in the U. S. But so far the two inch devils have been contained to Washington state. And now we continue our countdown of the top 15 stories of 2020 with Amanda Boy number eight the U. S and Iran approached the brink of war. January. 8th Iran fires missiles at two U. S. Bases in Iraq to retaliate for the killing of a high ranking member of Iran's military. The White House responds with new economic sanctions Number seven. The death of Congressman John Lewis, You must find a way to get in trouble. Look from Lewis passes away July 17th from pancreatic cancer, horse drawn case and carries his casket over the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, The civil rights icon becomes the first African American lawmaker to lie in state at the U. S. Capitol. Number six, the Atlantic hurricane season racks up our record 30 named Storms, six of them. Major. Atlanta is under tropical storm warnings for only the second time when Zeta rolls through in late October Number five. It's called total acquittal. It's the third impeachment trial in U. S history. President Trump is charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He is acquitted by the Senate in February. Number four another Supreme Court shakeups and privileged to be asked to serve my country in this office. October 26th Amy Cockney Bharat becomes the fifth woman to become an associate justice following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, its president. Trump's third appointment to the high Court number three. Protests over the death of George Floyd in Minnesota sweep across America. If you care about this city, then go home riots break out in Atlanta on May 29th is the fight over racial injustice reaches an intensity that harkens back to the sixties. Number two. I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide But unify Joe Biden is elected the 46, president of the United States in November. President Trump Challenges the election results in court and loses nearly every case. Inauguration Day is January 20th. Of course, there is no surprise that will top that countdown. Amanda looks back at the Cova.
Wisconsin high court won't let Trump campaign bypass lower court
"Court has thrown out a lower court decision that upheld California's limits on the number of people who can attend religious services during the pandemic. NPR's Nina Totenberg reports, the high court has instructed the lower court to reexamine these limits. In previous cases from California. The court had upheld the state's rules. But that changed with the arrival of new Justice Amy Cockney Barrett, who tipped the court majority in the other direction. So now, the justices have told the lower courts to reexamine the rules limiting the number of congregants that indoor services in California religious groups complained that they're the victims of discrimination because the limits on the number of people permitted at worship services are more severe than they are for grocery stores and warehouses. The state counters that there's a far greater danger of covert spread at places where people sing, chant and gather for longer periods of time. Nina
Supreme Court in Washington DC Seems Skeptical of Trump's Census Plan
"Census under scrutiny at the U. S. Supreme Court on Lisa Brady Fox News. More Specifically, CENSUS results The High Court hearing arguments today. About whether illegal immigrants should count in deciding a state's house seats boxes. Jared Helper is live in Washington, several states led by New York, challenging the Trump Administration memo to subtract undocumented immigrants from the census count that determines how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives. It's an undocumented person has been in the country for, say, 20 years, you know, even if Legally. As you say, Why would some person that have it Such a person that of a settled residents here, Acting U. S Solicitor General Jeff Wall told Justice Amy Cockney Barratt. Those ties do not apply in congressional apportionment because they don't count toward residents or dwelling within the meaning of these federal statute since this report is due to President Trump by the end of December.
SCOTUS skeptical of plan to block undocumented immigrants from census count
"States led by New York, challenging the Trump Administration memo to subtract undocumented immigrants from the census count that determines how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives. Undocumented person has been in the country for, say, 20 years, you know, even if illegally, as you say. Why would some person that have a such a person that have settled residents here, Acting U. S Solicitor General Jeff Wall told Justice Amy Cockney Barratt. Those ties do not apply in congressional apportionment because they don't count toward residents or dwelling within the meaning of these federal statute since this report is due to President Trump by the end of December. Lisa
Trump campaign loses appeal in Pennsylvania
"Appeals court on Friday denied the Trump campaign's effort to revive the federal lawsuit challenging the election results in Pennsylvania ruling the claims have no merit. The judges also rejecting the president's motion to one do Pennsylvania's certification of oats. The state on Tuesday certified its general election results in Pennsylvania, formally awarding President elect Joe Biden 20 electoral votes. There are those now who think that this rejection, But the federal appeals court will help the Trump campaign effort to get a case before the U. S. Supreme Court for it to decide the Supreme Court the night before Thanksgiving handed down a favorable ruling for many of the supporters of the president when they said the governor of New York's covert restrictions on some Catholic churches and synagogues Should be tossed out. So what does it mean for the future of the fight by the President's campaign, Mark Larsen from AM 7 60 talked to CBS News correspondent in Washington. Major Garrett about these cases, the third circuit in the most recent decision that came down today out of Pennsylvania case set. You need facts and law to be in dispute and we have neither. There's no evidence. There are no facts there. No presentations. There are just accusations and happily because court should not jump in when there are no facts and no relevant allegations and no dispute. About the underlying walk, no courts to jump in and do that They're not and they're not going to and nothing is going to get the Supreme Court that's reversible. And everyone says Oh, my gosh. Supreme Court said that Religious organizations are protected from certain covert restrictions. Of course they are in the First Amendment. There's a higher standard that's been part of U S law. The very beginning it's in the bill of rights. It's the First Amendment. Yes, there has to be a higher standard and a higher standard has been in law for a long time. It's not a departure. It's a verification, so they're separate things. Oh my gosh. The Supreme Court protected religious organizations and how they observed from covert restrictions. Yes, yes, There's a higher standard, right. Let's talk about that for a second. That was a big deal. Amy Cockney Barrett's first big swing vote opportunity there, and this puts limits on New York on Cuomo. When it came to, he was imposing attendance limits, like kind of like we have here in many cases with his own version of the color codes. 10 people in red Zones 25. People in orange zones seem to be disproportionately getting to the Catholics and the Orthodox Jewish congregations and so forth. So so this is a is a big deal. That sort of happened just over the holiday here in the court. Said. What the court has always said, which is Because it's in the First Amendment because it's in the bill of rights because it's in the Constitution. There's a higher standard that must be met. If you're going to restrict this activity. You better have a compelling state reason to do that. Mm. And if people have the volition to decide which they do, And you have to let them operate within the freedoms outlined in the Constitution that to meet is that doesn't strike me is radical and it doesn't strike me as something is his dangerous now did the chief justice when it was an eight member Supreme Court before him. He called me Barrett was nominated confirmed. Keep it for four. Yes, he did. So the chief justice comes down differently. But this didn't seem to me to be a radical departure that would should make us all breathless are nervous about what the court's going to do. And for the same reason, if any of these cases which I don't ever imagine they will get Supreme Court get there. The Supreme Court's not going to say you know what What doesn't matter, and we're going to keep President Trump in office, and it's not going to do that's not gonna happen. There's nothing that is meticulously legitimate about the assertions made so far and they've had plenty of time to find something and they found nothing. And that's the way it is. Major
Trump Celebrates SCOTUS Decision on COVID Restrictions
"CBS News correspondent Natalie Brand is that the White House Where the president is Also celebrating a Supreme Court ruling President Trump sent a happy Thanksgiving tweet Thursday morning Retweeting News of the Supreme Court's decision issued late Wednesday, blocking covert restrictions on houses of worship in New York in a 5 to 4 ruling with President Trump's latest appointee, Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. Now on the bench, the high court ruled in favor of religious groups, saying the state's coronavirus restrictions effectively barring many from attending religious services. Strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, issuing a statement applauding the court's decision, saying that they are gratified and appreciate the court's recognition of a clear First Amendment violation in urgent need for relief in that case.
High court blocks New York virus limits on houses of worship
"The Supreme Court blocks New York's coronavirus limits on houses of worship. Correspondent Mike Can't that explains the high court is far in New York from enforcing limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus. The justices voted 54 with new Justice Amy Cockney parrot in the majority. The three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. The vote was his shift for the court earlier this year when Pierre it's liberal predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was on the court. The justices voted 54 to leave in place pandemic related capacity restrictions. Affecting churches in California and Nevada.
Supreme Court Rules New York Cannot Limit Attendance At Houses Of Worship Due To COVID-19
"The Supreme Court ruled late last night's to block New York from enforcing attendance limits on houses of worship. President Trump's new Appointee, Justice Amy Cockney, Barrett, was in the majority on the decision. It's a shift from two previous cases in Nevada and California this year, when Barrett's predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was on the court. That's news nations. Geez Aggie reporting. The court's action won't have any immediate impact since the two groups that sued as a result of the restrictions. The Roman Catholic Church, an Orthodox Jewish synagogues are no longer subject to them. The group had challenged the attendants, limits and areas designated red and orange zones, but they're now in the less restrictive yellow zones.
Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on New York houses of worship
"Of New York state's strict attendants limits on religious gatherings. The rules were designed to help slow the spread of the Corona virus. It's 5 to 4 decision highlights tensions that have grown during the pandemic between secular leaders and some religious groups that also opens a window on the new makeup of this court. Now that Amy Cockney Barrett is on the bench. NPR's Brian Mann is in Westport in upstate New York and has been following developments have Ryan Hey, happy Thanksgiving, Ari. Same to you. New York has seen tens of thousands of covert 19 deaths. So what immediate impact is this ruling going to have on the state's attempt to fight the pandemic? State officials say there's no immediate impact. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish groups brought this legal challenge and state officials have already rolled back the so called red and orange zones that covered their churches and synagogues. So the rule limiting attendance to his fewest 10 people, even in big religious spaces. It wasn't actually being enforced. But the ruling could limit new restrictions here in the future at the number of cases really surges again in New York, and this also sends a message. You know two other governors around the country how the Supreme Court will look it at any of their restrictions. What's the reaction been today from the religious groups that brought this case? Yeah, they've declared victory. They say this is an important win for religious freedom. They point out that New York was still allowing so called essential businesses to operate in Corona virus hot spots without the same level of restriction. And this win for religious leaders is reversal from the Supreme Court's posture just last summer that gave governors ah lot more leeway fighting this pandemic. I spoke about this with Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia, he's legal expert on religious liberty. Governor's orders in New York, where some of the mystery Cockney and in the country the first case where Amy Cody Barrett really makes a difference is compared to respect her Ginsberg and it slipped the result and they're not going to be different from the governor's anymore. They're really going toe examine closely for signs of discrimination. And Laycock points out, Ari that governors can still restrict religious gatherings. They just can't restrict them in ways that are different from rules for businesses or government buildings. And now New York governor Andrew Cuomo was named personally in the lawsuit. How did he respond to the ruling? He described this as a political statement being made by this more conservative bloc that now defines this court. But in his daily coronavirus briefing today, Cuomo did also acknowledge the complicated tension here. Look, I'm a former altar boy Catholic Catholic grammar school Catholic high school Jesuit, said college, so I fully respect religion. And if there's a time in life when we need it at the time is now. But we want to make sure we keep people safe at the same time, and and that's the balance we're trying to hit, especially through this holiday season. And I should add, are that this isn't really new. Here. We've seen deadly Corona virus outbreaks in New York around religious communities following ceremonies, funerals and weddings, for example, right from the start of this pandemic, and religious leaders have clashed repeatedly with caramel, also with New York City's mayor. Over how far elected officials can or should go to limit new infections. Now, you mentioned that this reflects the new makeup of the Supreme Court, and there was some tense language in the opinions tell us about what the justices said. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence of green with this decision that was pretty biting. He wrote that, according to Governor Cuomo, and I'm reading here, quote it may be unsafe to go to church. But it's always fine to pick up another bottle of wine shop for a new bike or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. That's Reference thereto acupuncture clinics that remain open in New York. Meanwhile, in her dissent, Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that in the past, the Supreme Court has given public officials broad leeway in cases involving religion where public safety is a concern, she pointed The fact that the Supreme Court upheld President Trump's ban on immigration from certain Muslim countries. So justice Sotomayor suggesting that this ruling reflects a double standard. NPR's Brian Man, Thanks a lot. Thank you worry. It's a tough call to make telling your family you won't be
High court blocks New York virus limits on houses of worship
"Conservative majority on the Supreme Court. She is showing its influence for the first time since Amy Cockney Barrel took her seat on the bench. The high court has blocked New York's coronavirus limits on houses of worship. The high court is far in New York from enforcing limits on attendant said church, his hand synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus. The justices voted 54 with new Justice Amy Cockney parrot in the majority. The three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. The vote was his shift for the court earlier this year when parrots liberal predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the court. The justices voted 54 To leave in place. Pandemic related capacity restrictions affecting churches in California and Nevada, Mike Hemp in
High court blocks New York virus limits on houses of worship
"New York Governor Andrew Cuomo four seasons little practical effect from a Supreme Court ruling that bars the state from enforcing certain attendance limits. And houses of worship in pandemic hot zones, he says. The 5 to 4 ruling with new Justice Amy Cockney Barrett in the majority is more about demonstrating the high court has changed its stripes.
Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on some New York houses of worship
"The Supreme Court is temporarily barred New York from enforcing certain attendance limits that houses of worship in areas designated as hard hit by the coronavirus. Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish synagogues sued to get around those restrictions. The Supreme Court justices split 5 to 4 with new Justice Amy Cockney Barrett in the majority. The court's three liberal justices and chief Justice John Roberts dissented in that
Feinstein will not seek Senate Judiciary Committee leadership
"Senate committee is losing its chair. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, announced Monday that she's stepping down as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee after groups on the left criticized her handing of Amy Cockney Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Feinstein came under scathing criticism after she hugged Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham at the end of Barrett's confirmation hearing and praise his handling of it. She sparked outrage on the left after she thank grand For quote. One of the best sets of hearings I've ever participated in and praise or GOP colleagues were fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth Bernie Bennett in Washington, Joe
Feinstein will not seek Senate Judiciary Committee leadership
"Will not be looking to keep her spot is ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee when the next Congress convenes. California senior senator is served in the position since 2017 but had been the target of fire from within her own Democratic Party. After the rushed confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. There's no official word on who might replace her. President
Durbin seeks to become top-ranking Democrat on Judiciary panel
"Feinstein, the Democrat from California, was stepping down. As the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. She was criticized after praising Lindsey Graham's handling of the most recent Supreme Court nomination hearings for Amy Cockney Barrett, and now we're getting word that Senator Durbin, who was ranking third on the committee, says he will seek the ranking position there. He would be ranking behind right now. Feinstein and Patrick Leahy. They both have chaired the committee in the past, so On DIT. Both are quite a bit older than Dick Durbin, Durbin saying Now that he will seek the ranking committee status for the judiciary. Of course,