19 Burst results for "Bloomberg Supreme Court"

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

07:27 min | Last week

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Four tenths of 1% 41,700 even I'm Charlie peleton Matthew is Bloomberg business flash Charlie we thank you The stat I read today in Greg stores story On the terminal blew me away because I hadn't seen it for so long The CDC says only 62% of the country is fully vaccinated We're still at 62% Just 35% of people have received a booster shot We thought we'd be way beyond 62% by now And it informs the whole debate happening around the president's vaccine or test mandate The osha rule that came before the Supreme Court today would require companies with a hundred employees or more to mandate vaccines or get regular testing For employees the challenge by 26 business groups is led by the national federation of independent business They say osha is overstepping its authority basically in part because Congress did not authorize the agency to do this Scott Keller is an attorney for the federation Here he is in an exchange earlier today with justice Sonia Sotomayor Congress would have to clearly state in a statute if it wanted to give an occupational health agency the power to require employees to get certain medical treatment It's one thing to say There's no requirement here It's not a vaccine mandate It's something totally different And I don't know how much clearer than 6 51 Congress could have been It charges osha with developing innovative methods techniques and approaches to dealing with occupational safety Occupational safety and health issues I don't know how much clearer you can be if you're Congress Getting to the heart of the issue here according to some we bring in Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store to talk this out Greg thank you for joining us It's great to have you back here as I read through your piece It's important to remind people there are two different rules here What is the employer rule This is for private employers And there's a separate rule that would require shots for workers in nursing homes or other facilities as you write that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments from the government but this will be a single ruling Well we don't know for sure And it could well be too rulings They are two very different cases two different statutes that govern the agencies that issue the rules So we make it two different rulings That separate group 27 states challenging the osha rules say it interferes with states rights as well This is the one led by Ohio with states rights to make their own vaccine policies You know at one point we've been talking about this for so long Greg I think some people think this is already an effect actually because some companies have gone ahead and done this on their own But what is the actual question that the justices are seeking to answer here The actual question is whether this law or whether this rule can go into effect whether osha can start to enforce this rule against companies that aren't moving to either get their employees vaccinated or require that they either get vaccinated or get regular tests and wear masks in the workplace right now that is optional for companies some companies as you said do that There are still many many companies that don't And the reason the business groups are challenging This is they say it would be very expensive and burdensome and would cause a lot of workers to quit Conservative justices skeptical the heart of your story Yes Very much so And that includes the chief justice John Roberts who we often think of as being somewhere in the middle but he is of course a Republican appointee and generally conservative person who doesn't believe the federal government should exceed its authority And that's a core issue here is whether Congress gave osha in one case and CMS is in there for Medicare and Medicaid in the other case whether Congress gave those two agencies the authority to issue this sort of thing In both cases they're kind of broadly worded statutes especially broadly worded in the case of osha And the conservative justices have a tendency not to want federal agencies to overstep their bounds A lot of questions about enforcement today Greg how would that be handled Well osha would be says it wouldn't actually start issuing citations to employers until February The business groups say will be very difficult for them to come up with plans to make sure that they're meeting the requirement that they have testing procedures in place for people who don't want to get vaccinated that they have systems for making sure that for verifying that people have gotten their vaccines that's one of the issues in the cases that until this starts to go into effect it's hard to say exactly how burdensome it will be And of course once it goes into effect the damage if that's how you view this as already been done Would it there'd be like a spot inspection though or something Hey osha's here Grab your vax cards or would companies be required to submit that data by a certain deadline I'm going to have to duck that question because I don't fully know the answer It may not be determined yet Interesting by the way the irony is not lost on me that the two lawyers opposing the Biden rules as you point out solicitor general from Ohio solicitor general from Louisiana both were on the phone today because they have COVID Yes The court has a rule that lawyers arguing are supposed to take a COVID test the day before a PCR test And both of those lawyers did The lawyer from Ohio this lister general there apparently tested positive back closer to Christmas and I spokesperson said that he still tested positive yesterday And Louisiana they didn't explicitly say that's what happened that there was a positive test but they did say that the lawyer didn't take part because of the court's COVID protocols Okay got you At one point justice lido today was asking like God we've got hundreds of documents here all this business can at least give us a few days to consider this I figured it would be at least a few days Greg when do you expect to find out Well it's a good question and I'm certainly wondering whether we could even get something as early as today One thing justice alita was talking about was an administrative stay which is designed to be hey we're not saying one way or the other which way we're leaning but we're just holding everything in place while we have more time to think this through that it's at least a possibility that he raised during the argument And if indeed the court has sort of seamless the case in the argument is leading towards blocking in this rule there may be a real incentive among the conservative justices to go ahead and do that quickly Fascinating Is there a reason for that There was more are there more documents than usual to go through here or more issues to consider A typical case This whole case is unusual The osha rule is there are tens of thousands of pages of administrative record that they could need to go through But this is happening This is not a case where they had the benefit of full briefing Got it We consider a case It's.

osha Congress Greg Charlie peleton Matthew Scott Keller Bloomberg Supreme Court Greg store national federation of indepen Sonia Sotomayor Bloomberg CDC CMS Ohio Supreme Court Hey osha John Roberts Medicare
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:35 min | Last month

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"So much That's I love the West Coast correspondent for Bloomberg news joining us on location from the port of Los Angeles He's going to move on to a different protocol Let's move to Washington D.C. and get a check the latest world in Nashville news with Nancy lions Heinous Thanks Tim The Supreme Court will allow challenges to a controversial Texas abortion law but in the meantime the law will still be left in place in an 8 to one opinion today The U.S. Supreme Court says abortion providers may still sue in federal court over the law which bans most abortions after 6 weeks and Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store says there is now some clarification about who they can sue Because it is enforced by private lawsuits Abortion providers don't know who to sue to block the law So they tried various things They tried state court clerks state court judges the attorney general and the Supreme Court in an opinion by justice Gorsuch basically said the only people you can sue are a handful of state officials That's Bloomberg's Greg store The Labor Department says U.S. consumer prices climbed 6.8% in November but the president says it would have been worse without the effort he's making White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein in a Bloomberg interview attributed the inflection largely to pressure created by a level of demand for durable goods snarled supply chains prices at the pump are down 7% Prices of natural gas are down 25% None of those declines made it into the report So we expect energy to be much more of a neutral or even a negative factor in December We're entertained measures from getting major reports to operate longer hours for releasing oil.

Washington D.C. Nancy lions Supreme Court Bloomberg Supreme Court Greg store Bloomberg news Gorsuch West Coast Nashville Los Angeles Tim Bloomberg Texas Labor Department Jared Bernstein White House
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:36 min | 7 months ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"And we're not clear whether the second Circuit when it decided the case, actually Fully considered that argument, so we're going to kick it back and second circuit make sure you do fully consider that argument. Well, OK, very briefly at the end as we wrap up the term the this case only sort of approach. Isn't that pretty prevalent in this? It seems like to me anecdotally this term. We got a lot of those, including that First Amendment case with the cheerleader today, which is okay. You can't do it, but I can't say you can't ever do it. Yes, it's fair to say, say that's been going on a lap this term. Of course, that can, you know, set an example for future cases. But, yes, the courts so far this term and sort of stayed away from announcing grand new sweeping principle, which raises a question about the fears about conservative majority and being sweeping in their decisions right now. Looks like they're taking it one small step at a time. Yeah, but the words I would emphasize there are right now. This is just the spirits first term, of course, And they've got big abortion and gun rights cases next term that we may be talking about something totally different a year from now really important point. Always great to have you with us. Great story That is our Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Coming up. Republicans block voting law reform in the Senate. Does that make the filibuster at Rick some? Some Democrats, certainly saying it's time to make some modifications. We talk with Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution. That's coming up next on balance of power on Bloomberg Radio. Enjoy thanks The order breakfast at the McDonald's drive through Tell yourself you'll wait to eat it at work, but it smells.

Elaine Kamarck Brookings Institution Republicans Democrats Bloomberg Supreme Court today first term Senate second Circuit Rick second circuit Bloomberg Radio First Amendment one McDonald's step
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:01 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Law with Joon Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. Senate will convene is a court of impeachment. The chaplain will lead US in prayer, Chief Justice John Roberts presided over the first impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. Giving the event the gravitas it required. I think it is appropriate at this point for me to admonish both the House managers and the president's council in equal terms. To remember that they are addressing the world's greatest deliberative body. But Roberts has decided not to preside over Trump's second impeachment trial, giving an opening for Republicans to question the legitimacy of the trial. Joining me is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Greg. What is the Constitution say about the chief justice presiding over impeachment trials. Well, it says the teacher just has to preside over the impeachment trial of the president. What it doesn't say is whether he has to preside over the impeachment trial of a former president. And most constitutional scholars think that probably the answer is no that the document at least leaves the chief justice with the option of not presiding. The reason that Chief Justice presided over the trial of a sitting president is because if the vice president presides, the vice president might have a conflict of interest because they'd be presiding over a trial that could lead to them becoming president did. Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer asked the chief justice to preside, and he refused. Do we know what actually happened? That appears to be what happened. John Roberts hasn't said anything. What Chuck Schumer said the other night is that the chief justice declined the opportunity to do that. So the presumption is that he was asked to and chose not to, from a democratic standpoint or certainly a lot of advantages to having John Roberts. Presiding over the trial. You can see why they would have wanted him to him would have tried to get him to, But apparently he had no interest. Do you have any idea why Roberts hasn't made a public statement about why he is not presiding? It's pretty typical John Roberts. He doesn't make very many public statements back during the first impeachment trial a year ago, he completely left it up to Senate leaders to make announcements about what was happening. You know, it's certainly an opportunity work. He could have said something could have explained his reasons for not coming over could have said. I don't think the Constitution requires me to, but he chose not to. And we're all just left to some degree to speculate about what his reasons are. So the last trump impeachment trial, Roberts played a sort of minimalist rolled very much show. There was very little, he said. That wasn't suggested to him by the Senate parliamentarian. He kept the trains running on time. At one point, he admonished both sides to be a bit more civil, and probably the most noteworthy thing that he did was to say. That he wouldn't break any tie votes and and that he reference previous practice, which he said supported the idea that it was up to the Senate and that his entire role was just preside and keep the procedure moving, but not to make any substantive decisions. Why has Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy been chosen to preside over Trump's second impeachment trial? But he is the president pro TEM of the Senate taking over for Chuck Grassley, who held that position while the Republicans were in the majority lady was one of two options for the shot The other being Vice president Kamila Harris. Not clear why they went with Lady. It might seem slightly less political to have a member of the Senate rather than the new vice president, who was on the campaign that defeated Donald Trump. And the truth of the matter is, if this trial's anything like the last one, Senator Leahy won't have AH, whole lot to do other than kind of perform a keeping the proceeding moving along. He will want to have any substantive decisions to make. It seems like the perception of fairness would be better if it weren't, a Democratic senator who spoken against Trump's actions presiding over his impeachment trial. Yeah, I think that's a huge point. You know, In the last two impeachment trials we've had you have have a chief justice up their lending offensive gravity and making it seem as though it were at least partially a judicial proceeding. You have William Rehnquist for the impeachment of Bill Clinton and Robert's last year for Trump's first impeachment. Instead, you're gonna have a senator and remember Hope party opposing Donald Trump, and it will convey a very different atmosphere. And it certainly gives Republicans who don't want to talk about the substance of the charge against Donald Trump. He gives them another opening to talk about the process and in the claim is just a political exercise. Some Republicans seemed to be trying to spin the chief's absence. Into a decision by the chief that the impeachment of a president who's out of office is unconstitutional. Yeah, I think that's a bit of a leap. It is probably fair to surmise that the chief thinks that the Constitution doesn't require him to be there for the trials, But that whole separate issue of leather former president can be put on trial. It's hard to make that leap with just a step By John Roberts again. It is a talking point for Republicans, It makes sense that they are trying to cast That way, and but that really is a separate issue. Most constitutional scholars I've talked to say what history we have suggests that a former official can be put on trial and that that makes some sense because otherwise of president nearing the end of his or her terms, would be able to act with impunity without facing any sorts of consequence. That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store coming up the novel defenses of those charged in the capital riots. You're listening to Bloomberg. When first leaders feet Slack.

Chief Justice John Roberts Donald Trump president Senate vice president Bloomberg Supreme Court Chuck Schumer Vice president president pro TEM Greg Store senator Senator Patrick Leahy Bloomberg Radio Trump Joon Grasso reporter Senator Leahy Bloomberg
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:51 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Am in Hong Kong. And here in Singapore. I'm Juliet Solly and I've dug prisoner at the Bloomberg Interactive Brokers Studio in New York. We've got higher stocks right now in the eight Pack region after a record setting session here in the U. S. Tokyo, Sydney in Seoul. All up by at least 7/10 of 1% will take a closer look at all the market action when Brian Curtis joins us momentarily Right now, just two of this hour's top business stories, jewels, and there is movement in negotiations over a covert 19 relief feel Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, saying that he presented a new $916 billion covert 19 relief proposal. The House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Munitions said he had conferred with Republican congressional leaders on the plan as well as President Trump. The proposal includes money for station, local governments and robust liability protections for businesses, schools and universities. Before the mission proposals, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had floated the idea of setting aside those elements. Have a Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer said that leaving out state and local aid would hurt essential workers. Even so, speaking, Nancy Pelosi remains optimistic. And she has emphasized that this bill would be a bridge to another larger package. Once President elect by then takes office well for the first time in more than a decade, China's CP I might be negative. We have a preview from Bloomberg's Rosalyn Shin. A slowdown in consumer prices is mainly driven by the price of a single commodity. Pork. Pork prices have gradually ease from last year's surge as China's hogs recover from African swine fever, aside from pork prices in general, are lower than a year ago because of weak global demand. But economists think the drop is likely to be temporary on we'll have a limited impact on monetary policy. That's because consumer spending has picked up in the meantime, P p. I has been moderating as growth recovers. Bloomberg economics See CP I dropping 0.2% year on year on PP. I down 1.8% in Hong Kong on Muzzle Injun Bloomberg. Daybreak Asia, Let's stay in Hong Kong and get a market check with Brian Curtis Brian. Let's take a closer look. You mentioned the main story there that hit the mark. It's just a short while ago Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and his new package What's interesting is that, he said. That the Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnell, had reviewed the proposal. Now we don't know exactly what McConnell thinks, because so far, he hasn't commented. But it is seen as a positive and I think we're seeing you know the gains that we see in Asian markets this morning as Doug mentioned the Nikkei's up 9/10 of a percent of the SX 200 up 7/10 of a percent. And also gains of 8/10 of a percent in South Korea and sold. It suggests that people are seeing this as positive. And then we also had some some news published in the Lancet. Some details on the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca's vaccine that it's safe and effective. But they also said that more analysis will be needed to see how this is received by by people over 55. So it's still a few questions there. But it looks like we might move forward on the fires of vaccine this weekend. United States Modern It comes next week and now you have this Seemingly rather encouraging news from AstraZeneca. So it's all shaping up to further the bull market. I suppose of your long markets are commentator Yes, yes, says Looking at the cumulative advance decline line. We are clearly in a bull market. One thing that was interesting today was while U. S markets were rallying, and we had the Dow up about 4/10 of a percent in the S and P 503 10th of a percent. We also had gold higher and Treasuries higher as well. So money just chasing assets right across the board Dolly in one of 4 13, and we've got yield on the 10 year at 92 basis points, and that's check of markets jewels back to you. Inscribed. The U. S. Supreme Court has rejected a request by Trump allies to nullify Joe Biden's victory in Pennsylvania. Let's get to Ed Baxter in sentences go with all the global news said Yeah, this is another interesting one. Juliet. You're right. Although things seem almost over and everybody's mind and what has been an extraordinary run of the political life of Donald Trump. It is interesting and important to watch these on full. Joining us Live is a Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter and expert Greg store, Greg Thanks again for doing this what the courts say. He didn't say much ahead, but But in one sentence that spoke volumes, it just refused to intervene. In a challenge to the Pennsylvania election results. A group of Republican lawmakers had asked the court No If I Joe Biden's victory there because they objected to mail in voting and the Supreme Court without any noted defense said No. We're not going to do that. Yeah, So now you're the expert. But I'm thinking this a pretty clear message of how the court is looking at all of this and what might come that it's late and it's over. Does that make any sense? Yeah, That's that's the clear message from the court here because the fact that no justice publicly dissented and of course, there are some very conservative members of the Supreme Court. Uh, was definitely notable. We don't know whether they might have dissented privately, but in any event they chose not to make it public. With the electoral college, Uh, scheduled to meet next week. The chances for Donald Trump over turning this election results are nil, if not worse than that, But but he did take a new tact today talking about Mr Trump. Hey, said that with courage, legislatures, and then he said one member of the Supreme Court or all the justices, So could he be reaching out to somebody like Clarence Thomas? Well, it apparently didn't work. At least today. That was before this order came out and hard to imagine that any Supreme Court justice would react well to the president reaching out in that sort of way..

President Trump Supreme Court U. S. Supreme Court Mitch McConnell Hong Kong Bloomberg Nancy Pelosi Bloomberg Supreme Court Juliet Solly Joe Biden Bloomberg Interactive Brokers President Pennsylvania Brian Curtis Singapore Injun Bloomberg China Senate Majority
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:13 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"And a lot of that's happening as we speak. US. Stocks did power up again. All three equity benchmarks finished in the green. Had energy and biotech as the standouts. Then, after the closing Bell Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said that he presented a new package to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. I won't go into details on this, but because we'll have those details in a moment, But it's $916 billion. You would think that that would be having a big impact on markets and we're seeing a little bit here s and P E. Many suggest up a tad the only up 1/10 of 1% over the Asian markets are moving forward. The Nikkei up about a half a percent similar gains in Australia. The ASX 200 Also up by 35 points a little more than half of a percent and we're just seeing some good numbers in Seoul is well, The Cosby Up 9/10 of 1% dollar hasn't moved much Dolly in one of 4 16 yield on the 10 year 92 basis points and wt I crewed $45.55 a barrel We did get one word earlier that this was a report from CNBC. That door dash had sold shares at $102 each in its I P o for the details coming up, Doug. All right, Brian. So, as you mentioned, we've got some more movement here when it comes to Ako would relief Bill in the States. Treasury Secretary Munition, of course, presenting that proposal to House Speaker Pelosi. And as Brian mentioned, it's worth 916 billion Now, Munitions said that he had conferred not only with GOP congressional leaders but with President Trump as well. So the proposal does include money for state and local government. That would be a draw right And then there's also the robust liability protections being offered for businesses, schools and universities. That said Before the proposal from Mr Mnuchin, Senate Majority leader McConnell had floated the idea of setting aside those more divisive elements. What I recommend is we set aside liability and set aside state local and pass those things that we can agree on knowing full well, we'll be back out this after First of the year. That's the important thing, and that was echoed by House Speaker Pelosi that this is just a bridge basically, to get us to the other side, the other side being President elect Biden and a new administration. Now, as we just heard from McConnell there, the focus is obviously on three areas and the small business assistance, expanded unemployment insurance and funding for a vaccine. That's really the focal point now. Minority leader Chuck Schumer in the Senate said that leaving out state and local aid to those state and local governments would basically hurt essential workers. And that come back to Pelosi. She does remain optimistic, seeing this jewels as a bridge to the other side. Your father and beyond text vaccine has been found highly effective in preventing covert 19 this, according to a report by FDA staff, it shows the vaccine 95%, effective in preventing symptomatic covert 19 on the report will be analyzed closely at an FDA advisory meeting on Thursday. As a CEO Albert Bowler says there are no safety concerns, says the company didn't cut any corners during its trials. We tested this vaccine with the exact same way, but we are testing any vaccine but is circulating out there, But this vaccine actually was tested even because of the scrutiny with even higher Standards in terms of how we do things. We could be extremely transparent the entire interest by putting out data asses they were generated. He could clear the shot soon after Thursday's meeting, then 6.4 million doses could become immediately available. Trump Administration officials have said distribution could begin within 24 hours between Fiza and Madonna's vaccines. 40 million doses could be available by the end of the year. And that is enough for 20 million people to get the two shot regimen. Well, we've got some global news now and here in the states, the Supreme Court has rejected a request from Trump allies to nullify the Biden victory in Pennsylvania. Let's get all of the global news now with that Baxter in the Bloomberg 9 60 newsroom in San Francisco, Eddie Yeah, and so it seems to go Doug. In the ruling, the court said it's too late and was advocating the extraordinary proposition that the court disenfranchised all 6.9 million voters and throw it to the state Legislature. Meanwhile, the suit filed by Texas attorney General challenging several state Biden wins has been formally Doc It'd meaning received and potentially reviewed, so the beat goes on. We are going to buy the way talk live with Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg stories, an expert in all this stuff, and he can kind of sort out Where we are, whether it's over whether there's anything else out there. Now, Joe Biden has reached the goal of making the deadline to for the states to ratify the elections, meaning that there's little turning back at this point. And Donald Trump is down to this, Whether it's a legislator or legislate yours, or whether it's a justice of the Supreme Court or a number of justices of the Supreme Court. Let's see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows. Is right now. He does not specify as who is everybody and what is right. And Republicans on the congressional panel planning the inauguration have blocked a resolution saying they were preparing for the swearing in of Joe Biden, saying it has not been decided yet. Hong Kong Center for Health Protection has rejected reported out 100 additional confirmed cases of covert 1995 local infections 13 of those related to a dancing cluster, which has caused more than 660 infections. So far, they say, another cluster in a public housing estate one a department store and a construction site cluster. Connecticut now has the highest per capita cova case rate in the nation. The nation passes of 15 million Mark New York City, telling restaurants to expect curbs in a matter of days if rates don't stabilize and UK has rolled out the first Fizer vaccinations amazing to see this tremendous shot in the arm for the entire nation..

Joe Biden House Speaker Nancy Pelosi President Trump Supreme Court Senate Steve Mnuchin Brian McConnell Doug Bloomberg Supreme Court US FDA Trump Administration Chuck Schumer Seoul Hong Kong Center for Health Pr
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:59 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Indicators Rich as you well know, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicating that in questions Joining us live is Kimberly Robinson Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Thank you for for joining us here, So you kind of and watching the Supreme Court. I guess you have to kind of watch the wind flow. They both seem to indicate it could stand without the mandate. But was I understanding that correctly? You think That's right. So we really saw both Chief Justice Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh signal that even if the Supreme Court is to strike down part of the law, if they both are not willing to go as far to say that the whole law muscle down, and it's not just reading that he leaves from this case today, the court actually had two cases last term where consider this question of what the court called severability and in that inn in those cases we saw Chief Justice Roberts say that When the justices are confronted with the question on how big to invalidate a law they should really use a scalpel rather than a bulldozer. Yeah, and the mandate was actually reduced to zero as I understand in 2017. So are they talking about? If the if the taking out the man they just removing it. Ah, with the scalpel. That's right. And so the linchpin of those who are challenging the entire act. They point to the fact that the Obama administration and defending the affordable care Act in the Supreme Court initially said that the mandate was essential to the law that without it, the other provisions couldn't work. And so they're saying we should really just take the Obama administration at their words. But we thought Chief Justice Roberts say that you know really. What the court to do is look at what Congress would have wanted when they amended the law, and he noted that over and over again, Republicans in Congress tried to overturn the entire law and they couldn't do it and what they came up with is just a repeal of the very most popular part of Obamacare and that is this individual mandate, And he said that was compelling evidence of what Congress would have wanted. Now. The reason we're focusing on two is that that you would need the to to have a majority. Did Brett Kavanaugh strongly show any leaning then? He did. He was right there, with Chief Justice Roberts saying that we look at what Congress would have wanted in enacting this law that this is really an easy case for us. I will say that another person that we're watching is the newest justice Justice Amy Cockney bear. She didn't really asking questions along the lines of severability. There are a lot of issues in this case. But importantly when she was still a judge, she said on a mock trial of this case, and she noted in her confirmation hearings that she actually voted to find the mandate unconstitutional, but voted to sever it from the rest of the law, so she her vote is also still in place. Okay, So so all of these are indicators. Of course, The ruling is not due out until what June Well, that is commonly what we expect from the Supreme Court that justice is, you know, kind of save their most contentious cases for the last simply because it takes so long to decide, though. But here you have a lopsided ruling. We could see this come out even earlier than that. So I wouldn't expect it any earlier before the spring of 2021. Alright, Very good. Thank you so much. Kimberly really appreciate your help. Very good. That is Kimberly Robinson Bloomberga Supreme Court reporter in San Francisco. I met Baxter. This is Bloomberg are Brian Sorry, Dad. Thank you very much. Let's get two sports with Daniel Sportsman. Sorry, Dan. Uh, And name are so what do you think? Is he looking to stay in Paris? You know that's been the big question. The last couple of years has always been a whisper of him wanting to return to Barcelona. But ESPN now reports Brian that name R and P. S G have open contract talks aimed at keeping the Brazil National at Park depends. Passed. His current contract, which expires in June of 2022 potential new five year deal would not include.

Chief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh Bloomberg Supreme Court Kimberly Robinson Bloomberga S Congress Justice Amy Cockney Kimberly Robinson reporter Obama administration Daniel Sportsman Kimberly Bloomberg ESPN Brazil National at Park Baxter Barcelona Paris Dan Brian
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:06 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Press Stain job. I need six more electors to get to 70 and the Trump Administration filing a number of lawsuits, the actual continues it Yeah, well, it's a blizzard today. For sure. Kathleen. Let's focus on the suit's here because we have a good got to do that suits in Michigan Stop the vote. Wisconsin recount in Wisconsin Supreme Court suit in Pennsylvania regarding along count and now AP says that one that was reported earlier in Georgia is not About stopping the vote. Joining us live here is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Greg. Thanks for joining us. Maybe you can clear this up for us. Or maybe I'm the only one confused. Georgia reported suit AP corrected then Do we know if there's a suit there or just another kind of suit? I think it is another kind of tutor, at least according to the AP Story I am looking at it says that what they're trying to do is to segregate ballots. Those that arrived after seven PM on election day and therefore might have been late, so it's not actually stop the count. According to this AP story it is Uh, to make sure that certain ballots will be counted depending on how further litigation goes. Okay, so and let's look at the Pennsylvania now we knew this was coming. It was advertised. What is the complaint here? And then what is the process? So there are a couple things going on in Pennsylvania. There. There's a lawsuit the campaign has has filed from scratch. That claims that the admitted that the campaign wasn't given adequate access to Some of the counting going on. And then there's a case at the Supreme Court that you and I have talked about before now takes on a new adoration. This has to do with Palates that, um, extension of time for balance to be received in Pennsylvania that was ordered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and Republicans have been trying to stop that extension and potentially stop. Tens of thousands of ballots from being counted. The Trump Administration has now asked to intervene in that case and potentially have the Supreme Court hear arguments in it, or at least take it up on the marriage and potentially rule that Those tens of thousands of votes that might come in after election day cannot be counted. Dude s O Does that go to the full court then? If so, what is the time frame that we're talking about? It's hard to say what the timeframe is. What this actually is at the moment is what's known as a sir petition, which is just basically an appeal. It's the kind of thing that the court deals with all the time and and you and I talk about all the time. And right because the Supreme Court previously refused to expedite that so it could be dealt with before the election. At the moment, it's just on their normal time frame, which means that the brief in opposition to the petition wouldn't be filed until the end of November. Clearly, that would have to be expedited at this point for the court to deal with it. But we don't know how quickly will be expedited One that we know is that they've asked for filing from the Democrats by tomorrow afternoon. You know, we have about 40 seconds here, Greg, but Michigan Isa, Stop the vote if I remember correctly and Wisconsin eyes recount correct I believe that is right. Yes, they prove the administrative because in with confidence within 1%, the administration is seeking a recount Their Andi and yes, the complaints in Michigan's I understand that are similar to the complaints in Pennsylvania about access to voting. I see. OK, alright, so and then this stuff really has to be ruled on very quickly because the states are finishing. Finishing up the vote. So it'll be interesting to see how our playoff Greg, thank you so much. We really appreciate your time again. Supreme Court reporter Greg Store for Bloomberg and let's Get back to you, Kathleen. Thank you so much and terrific conversation with bread. Thank thank you very much for that. Helping us keep all this stuff straight well now on to the world of sports. Dan Schwartzman is here with a big important questions Going to answer Will a Real Madrid star be returning down? Cathleen Great question. Reports say that Rail Madrid and captain Sergio Ramos have begun contract talks for the 34 year Olds. Current deal set expire in June of 2021. Kathleen. The defenders believe Toe won a three year contract to stay in the Spanish capital the club, apparently not against that length because he's in such great physical shape. Ramos has been at the burn a bio since coming over from severe back in 2005 for €27 million than a record for a Spanish defender. Manchester United. Stunned in Turkey by Istanbul the shock she here 2 to 1. In a champion's e group stage match, a dean fish just scoring the win the 40th minute elsewhere, Chelsea knocks off standing on a three nil Timo Burners, scoring twice on penalties severe getting past Krasnodar 32 to Barcelona slipping by Dynamo Kiev 2 to 1 Piquet scoring the winning goal in the 65th minute. Meanwhile, you vented speeds Forenza borrows for the one Alvaro Morata with.

Supreme Court Pennsylvania Greg Store Wisconsin Supreme Court Pennsylvania Supreme Court Trump Administration Bloomberg Supreme Court Kathleen AP Michigan Wisconsin Sergio Ramos Georgia reporter Turkey Toe Alvaro Morata Istanbul Cathleen Great
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:19 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"It starts at $699. Is also an iPhone 12 pro that starts at 9 99 and an iPhone 12 pro Max. It's a larger phone with an entry level price of 1000 and $99. Well, the Trump Administration is folded battle against extending the census count, and it's now been handed. A major victory in Baxter has over Global news in San Francisco. Yeah, right, truly, U. S. Supreme Court has left the Trump Administration and the census count two weeks short. Of a federal court, which had extended through the end of the month. Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store says there is a definite blow to civil rights groups, but that said they did succeed in extending the count up until this point. The administration want to stop it on September the 30th because because of the litigation they've had to had to keep counting in. The civil rights groups now say millions of people have been counted because of that. Supreme Court Senate confirmation hearings today with questions judging Amy Cockney Barrett answering questions about our positions on the time, not here on a mission to destroy the affordable care act. I'm just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law and not recusing herself on any election ruling, but saying she will consult with other justices and make a decision on due process would be very clear for the record until all members of this committee That No matter what anyone else may think, or expect. I have not committed to anyone or so much as signaled. I've never even written and she says she would not commit to any rulings on abortion, saying they're certain guarantees for birth control in state jurisdiction. Meanwhile, President Trump has asked the U. S Supreme Court to block a federal appeals court decision that would permit the district attorney in Manhattan to get his tax filings and other financial records is part of a criminal investigation. Ah federal appeals court in New York last week. Rejected the latest attempt by Trump to block a grand jury. Subpoena. CHINA, Cuba Russia elected to the U. N Human Rights Council, despite vehement opposition from activists and organizations who say the countries governments are among the worst offenders of human rights globally, Saudi Arabia did not make the cut. And Koba Nineteens become the Grinch that may have stolen Halloween if there is such a thing in California, at least the state's top health official, Dr Mark Galley, says, while trick or treating will not be banned some of the traditional Halloween celebrations such as parties Door to door trick or treating, we know pose a high risk of spreading cove it and are therefore strongly discouraged. And he says do it at home, or virtually New York City is issued $150,000 in fines and 100 summons over the weekend. Mostly targeted at the hot spots where there had been great resistance to isolation policies in San Francisco. I'm Ed Baxter, this is Bloomberg, right, Brian. Thank you. Our guest is Sutra in managing director of global macro strategy at Manulife Investment Management. Sue no stimulus at hand in the US we have the president say go big or go home, so that shows that he's on a different page from Senate Republicans. And then we had the pause in these two trials addressing covered 19. Vaccine in treatment should the market be concerned? Hi Bryan. Well on the stimulus plan still hanging in the balance. It is incredibly disappointing that livelihood has become politicized on the market Contentious is tilting already towards nothing being done before the election. But there could yet be a positive surprise if Donald Trump is able to use executive orders as he has promised to get money into people's pockets, and that may also increases his election on on the vaccine. What's being quite a consistent theme in terms of business is that businesses don't actually put all the eggs into the vaccine basket. In fact, Most of our site, the need for more effective testing on site and the reopening of schools and day care centers in order to normalize their business operations vaccine. Actually, the existence of a vaccine actually falls pretty low and Tim's on the priority list. So you touch there on the election? Pretty much every day. I'm getting in my inbox. You know, Blue sweet. What does this mean? You're saying Look, it's trump by a landslide. Tell us why perhaps the markets could be under pressing this. Actually, Julia the point that I was making, and that note was that the polls? Yes, they say Biden clean sweep. The market appears to be pricing in that eventuality, but pretty large assumption that the whole don't actually have major. Something issues which asses it is a big assumption when you look at it. Enthusiasm, however, rally attendees, signage, registration, even cookie sales and Internet activity That is trump violence slide. So my point is that It's not a done deal and that we could be in for Ah Ah, relax on 26 stained in terms of the shock to markets, given how Steve market pricing and So let's turn the focus a little bit to Asia. We have a big speech coming from President Xi Jinping in Shang Jin today what he expecting to hear I would expect that she is like me. Tio fly the flag for globalization and China's leadership role in that something rather deja v On his days off a few years ago, I think really, the key for the region and general Bar is the resolution or some kind of Resolving off the very fractious relationship between us and China. Unfortunately, there is no end in front and that's regardless of who wins the US election. All right. Well, we'll continue the conversation with you shortly suit but wanted to get your thoughts as well as what we're seeing with some of these other monetary policy authorities. We have the best today, leaving zero currency appreciation. As expected, Brian.

U. S. Supreme Court Trump Administration Donald Trump CHINA San Francisco Ed Baxter Bloomberg US Senate Manhattan president Brian U. S Supreme Court President Xi Jinping New York City Bryan Amy Cockney Barrett Saudi Arabia
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:24 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"For a quick end of a stalemate over a new stimulus are fading with members of the House being told not to expect any action this week. Many Senate Republicans are rejecting the White House proposal for a deal stocks so climbing to the highest in almost six weeks amid a rally in giant technology companies as traders await earnings from major banks. They're also waiting for any other news on a fresh round of economic stimulus. Here's where we stand, the S and P 500 index is pushing are now up 64 points. That is a gain of 1.9%. Down's up. 308 points higher by 1.1%. NASDAQ Up 329 points up 2.8% as tax game for all of this year 32.7% That compares to advance for the SNP of 9.6%. No bond market trading Today we've got gold down 4/10 of 1% 1920 to the arms and West Texas Intermediate crude down 3% 39 36, now for a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crew. Recapping equities higher text leading the way as MP up 64 off 1.8%. I'm Charlie Pellet back, Kevin. Surly is a Bloomberg business Flash. Thank you, Charlie. I'm Kevin, surly, Chief Washington correspondent, limber television and radio And for David Westin today, we're just getting word that anticipated to begin her opening remarks within the next hour. Judge Amy Cockney Barrett before the Senate Judiciary Committee. We will take you to those remarks. Should we get them in this hour? We'll go live to Capitol Hill here to break down what we are anticipating during this confirmation hearing. Is Greg store on? He, of course, covers all things for Bloomberg Supreme Court. He is the Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Okay, Greg, we're moments away from her talking. What are we going to be? What are you going to be listening for? Well, we've seen her opening statement, at least her prepared remarks, and she's going to say according to those that she is somebody who doesn't decide cases the way she wants. Some decided to decide according to the law, she's going to try to personalize herself a bit talking about her family. Really. It's a pretty standard statement from a Republican Supreme Court nominee, so part of what could be listening for is whether she deviates from that at all in her opening remarks OK. Meanwhile, what would you be listening for tomorrow during the all important question and answer portion of this what? What one of the risks for Republicans on one of the risks for Democrats. Well, The biggest thing we're watching for is does she make a mistake? That's really the only thing I would have to be a very big mistake for her to not be confirmed right now. So that's thing number One thing. Number two is the Democratic attacks on her. So far today has been remarkably narrow, and they're not really attacks on her their attacks on what could happen if she joins the court and in the process of nominating her. It's been a huge amount of talk about the affordable care act because that's going to be argued a week after the election a little bit of talk about abortion rights. And almost no talk about any other issue. So be interesting to see if Democrats go beyond that in their questioning of her okay. Meanwhile, on the issue of the election, yes, that's obviously going to color. All of this. But meanwhile, meanwhile, we could get some new clues in terms of how she would rule on a host of different cases. Chief among them health care What do we know? So on health care, See that I mentioned that case is going to be argued at the Supreme Court. We can win the election right now. It looks like she'll be on the court for that argument. She criticized the reasoning of John Roberts when he cast the key vote eight years ago to uphold the law. The current case is a little bit different than that it it comes from a change that Republicans made to the law to eliminate the tax penalty for not Having insurance. So it doesn't necessarily mean that because she was critical of John Roberts, then that she will vote to strike down the affordable care act now, But she's certainly going to be asked about her critical comments, and it will be very interesting to hear what she says about those and how that might possibly relate. How shall review the current case? Greg stores with us? He is a Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter. We're just moments away. From Judge Amy Cockney Barrett, delivering her opening remarks before the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham. Of course, he finds himself in a very tough reelection battle. In the Palmetto State. That is South Carolina. Meanwhile, there's some other cases that the Supreme Court will be weighing in on after the healthcare After the health care decision, Greg store. What are some of the other cases that we know are going to be are likely to be on the Supreme Court docket? Well, right now, let me just first day what we don't have. We don't have any abortion cases. Right now. The court has been steering leave from those We do have a lot of emergency things that are coming up to the court regarding the locals are voting in this election. There may well be some of those that arrive after she's doing the court, and it could be that she makes a difference. And certainly if there's any post election challenge to the results, like what we had in 2000 with Bush v. Gore, she'll be on the Supreme Court for that. That may be the biggest single thing we do, we can look forward to Over our worry about the future, depending on the perspective should she joined the court. And then what else? I mean, in terms of the financial sector in terms of thie Financial rulings. You know, In the last couple of years, we've gotten significant rulings with regards to unions and workersrights. What are some of the other cases over the next decade? Really, that could come up in terms of a 63 majority Conservative majority on the Supreme Court. We're almost certainly gonna have a lot of cases about federal regulation. The power of federal agencies Donald Trump's earlier to appointees Neil, Gorsuch and Breck having are both in favor of restricting the power of agencies to deal with things like ambiguous statutes or their own ambiguous regulations in an area like environmental regulation. That's that's hugely important because You know, Congress haven't updated the thing the Clean Air Act to to deal with climate change..

Supreme Court Bloomberg Supreme Court Greg store Judge Amy Cockney Barrett Senate Judiciary Committee reporter Bloomberg John Roberts Senate Charlie Pellet Greg Greg Store West Texas Intermediate David Westin Kevin White House West Texas Intermediate crew Donald Trump
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:42 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Last year, but the Corona virus pandemic has stalled emotion. I'm back, Matt. And I'm Susanna Palmer in the Bloomberg newsroom Law enforcement intercepted a package addressed to President Donald Trump earlier this week that contained the poison rice and that's according to CNN sighting. Two unidentified law enforcement officials. FBI and the Secret Service are investigating the incident. All mail sent to the White House assorted and screened off site before it's delivered. President Trump says he's approved oracles bid for the U. S operations of TIC Tac in concept a deal forced by the president's orders last month, declaring the popular video sharing APP a national security threat. I have given the deal my blessing, Trump told reporters today as he left the White House for a campaign rally in North Carolina. The Chinese government must now sign off on the transaction for it to go forward. Saudi Arabia is warning to OPEC plus cheaters and short sellers alike has helped oil prices stage their biggest weekly rally since June. More on that from Bloomberg's Charlie Pellet Futures rose 10% last week following a show of determination by Saudi Arabia, the most influential nation in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to defend the market. Saudis hinted they are prepared for new production cuts and blasted OPEC plus members that have cheated on production quotas. Charlie Pellet, Bloomberg Radio Nymex crude, last quoted at 41 11 a barrel At the start of the week, the empty announced there would be $50 fines for transit riders refusing to wear a mask. By Friday afternoon, according to the Gotham is that the agency announced that the M T. A police and bridge and tunnel officers had issued exactly zero tickets. On most of our Bloomberg stations and streaming on the Internet Coming up. Next is a Bloomberg loss Special on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Ginsberg died yesterday at age 87 from complications of cancer. You'll hear Bloomberg Supreme Court reporters and our interview from last year with the justice herself. Global News 24 hours a day on air and on Bloomberg Quick take powered by more than 2700, journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries. I'm Susanna Palmer, This is Bloomberg. This's masters in business with very results on Bloomberg Radio. My special guest this week is Doug Tomorrow he is a car viewer, but not just any car reviewer. His YouTube channel has 3.7 million subscribers. His videos have been seen over 1.1 billion times. Each one averages about a two million view count per video. He has won numerous awards from YouTube and others, including the Gold Creator award. He is the author of two books. Plays with cars and bumper to bumper, Doug Demure. Oh, welcome to Bloomberg. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. So let's get a little overview of your career. Begin it. Porsche, as sort of Ah Cubical drone working spreadsheets, but But at least you got a really nice company car, didn't you? Yeah, I worked at portion. I was 21. I just graduated college and I had a 9 11. A series of them actually had for 9 11 company cars During the time I worked there a Panamera I only crashed two of those five cars that really it all worked out pretty well. I think now the 9 11 I read about was a rainstorm. You come around a turn, and there's a tree down on the street. How did you How did you crash? The Panamera? Oh, and that one. The Panamera was was not my fault. The guy pulled out in front me. He ran a stop sign. I also considered the 9 11 not to be my fault. You know the tree in the road, but my bosses didn't see it that way. If they were not in agreement with me, was the tree falling, Justus. You came around the corner or tree already load, But it was a dark road and it was a start corner. And you just You couldn't avoid it in my right. Unless you were driving more slowly, which is what the officer would have said the man. You think I think they're arriving one ofyou right to fast for for road conditions. I we've all been there. So you begin writing. Not long after your Porsche. You wrote for the truth about cars, which is a great blogged way early. That block was telling people that GM was going to go bankrupt. Years in advance. They were dead, right? You right? You wrote for Ah, Jalopnik. What? What led to this side gig? Well, you know, it's interesting. I mean, I was 21. I was working Portia and then 22 23. No, I don't know. I was just at that age. It's hard to sit next cubicle. You know, I just was thinking of myself. Um, I really going to do this forever. And it was cool having those cars, but they weren't mine. You know, they were rental cars essentially from the company that you had for six months. Then you get another one. And I just remember after the third or fourth one, you pick it up in this kind of lost magic. And you think to yourself Is this really gonna be my whole life? You know, am I going to be Driving other people's cars, and that's kind of the highlight of my life. It's picking up a new rented and so I started to kind of think about what I want to do. Really. And I was actually writing already for ah autotrader dot com. Writing like As boring and generic car articles. You know, Should you buy your car at the end of the lead or whatever, And I just decided my wife and I were like, Let's just take this job. So one day I quit and started. Yeah, I mean, I started reading about cars about two weeks after I quit. And that began the that was the seed that sprouted. Now I recall reading something of yours about the Chicago auto show that was surprisingly funny in a very Dave Barry. Like way it had a sense of humor. It wasn't your straight Here's the latest and greatest from Hyundai. Right, right? Yeah, I started. I started going after kind of more humorous slant on it..

Bloomberg Bloomberg Supreme Court Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Radio Nymex President Donald Trump Susanna Palmer Saudi Arabia OPEC Porsche Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg White House YouTube FBI North Carolina Matt Charlie Pellet Chinese government CNN Doug Demure
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:28 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"With cancer. She attended Columbia and Harvard law schools and was active in the A. C L. U Ginsberg became a federal appeals court judge in 1980, a stepping stone. To the Supreme Court. Fans of the feisty liberal justice often referred to her as the notorious RBG. I'm Terri More. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says the Senate will vote on whoever President Trump picks to replace the late Supreme Court. Justice McConnell said Friday. They're keeping a promise to work with Trump and support his agenda. A statement came just hours after Ginsberg lost her battle with pancreatic cancer, McConnell said the nation grieves along with Ginn's works, family friends, John Jeffries. And I'm Susanna Palmer. In the Bloomberg News Room. President Donald Trump signaled he will move quickly to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tweeting this morning that it's the Republican Party's obligation to do so. Speculation is that the nominee will be Amy Cockney Barrett, a U. S Court of appeals judge appointed by Trump. She was also among finalists Trump considered before selecting Brett Kavanaugh for the court. Back in 2018 on most of our Bloomberg stations and streaming on the Internet, you can hear a Bloomberg loss Special on Justice Ginsburg today at 2 P.m. and 5 P.m. Eastern. You'll hear Bloomberg Supreme Court reporters and our interview from last year with the justice herself Bit by bit. Billionaire Ronald O. Pearlman is parting with his treasures. We get more on that from Bloomberg's Dinis Pellegrini. The billionaire has put his airplane and his yacht on the market and has sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of his collected artworks to Sotheby's. Pearlman is 77. He's facing a range of financial challenges, most of all at Revlon, his investment company, McAndrews and Forbes said in July it would rework its holdings in response to the Corona virus pandemic. Perlman says he wants to spend more time with his family and simplify his life. He was once touted as America's richest men. The Bloomberg billionaires Index shows Perlman's wealth has dropped from $19 billion to just $4.2 billion in the past two years. Sinisa Pellegrini. Bloomberg Radio. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy said $500 payments for the middle class funded by the New Jersey millionaire's tax will ease the sting off property taxes. I have averaged $8953 last year. In an appearance on Fox five's Good Day, New York, Murphy dismissed the suggestion that the tax on incomes above $1 million rising to 10.75% from 8.97% will drive the wealthy to lower cost states such as Florida This as Republican critics have, said Global News 24 hours a day on air and on Bloomberg quick take powered by more than 2700, journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries. I'm Susanna Palmer. This is Bloomberg. This's a Bloomberg law special. The life death and legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I'm David Westin Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away at the age of 87. She died due to complications from pancreatic cancer surrounded by her family at her home in Washington. Gin's worth 27 years in the high court were historic to say the least she fought tirelessly to advance the rights of women. She built a record as one of the most liberal justices supporting gay rights, abortion rights and restrictions on the death penalty. In October of last year, she sat down for extended interview with David Rubenstein on his show, peer to peer conversations, looking back at her body of work and the mark she made on U. S law. Let's bring you Maura that conversation Now. Here's David Rubenstein, speaking with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Just last year, you won a number of cases for the.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Bloomberg President Donald Trump Supreme Court Bloomberg Supreme Court Majority Leader Mitch McConnel L. U Ginsberg David Westin Supreme Court Ronald O. Pearlman pancreatic cancer Susanna Palmer Sinisa Pellegrini U. S Court of appeals David Rubenstein Gin Perlman Governor Phil Murphy Senate Amy Cockney Barrett
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

07:18 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Thiss is Bloomberg Law with Joon Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. First case We will argue today is case 19 7 15. Donald Trump versus Maze ours. USA. There may not be a case that draws as much attention as the trump subpoena cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term, But there will certainly be defining cases and perhaps even decisions that overturn precedent. I've been talking to Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store about the new term. And Greg. We were discussing one of those cases that challenges precedent, a case where religious rights and gay rights seemed to collide. And in all three cases last term involving religion, the court expanded religious liberties with either 722 or 5 to 4 votes. Yes, they certainly have. And not all of those cases were under the guise of the Constitution. There's also a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Some of the cases have involved that the case they got a lot of attention this last term involving the obamacare contraceptive requirement that was actually primarily a case about federal administrative law and whether the Trump administration had checked all the boxes in terms of giving a broad religion. Gumption to employers in universities from that requirement. This will be certainly when the biggest case that directly deals with the constitutional Free exercise club So now is this Facebook's first appearance at the court in a case involving text messages and robo calls, it is. Remember that last term they had a case that Challenge the federal ban on Robo calls. The mobile phones of the Supreme Court held that law and the Facebook case was sort of waiting in the wings for the court to resolve that and when it gets into is not a constitutional questions of the earlier case, but kind of nothing. Both questions of what really is a robo call the law. This is a case about somebody who sued Facebook because he got axed messages he didn't want And the question is whether those text messages are covered under the statute and whether therefore he can press a lawsuit against Facebook, potentially a class action suit that was involved big money a little more of a granular case, but certainly something that is of great interest to a lot of people in the community. Can we tell where this is going from the robo call case. This term we're just about everyone agreed that nobody likes Robo calls. I'm not sure we can. You know, Rubble calls for the Supreme Court justices. They'll understand what those are. This case involves a little more of a question about the mechanism for sending these text messages. It is, as I said, a question of interpreting this federal statute and not so much the Constitution. No, I'm not ready to say that. I have any strong views on how this case is likely to come out based on what we saw in this last term. Now another case that seems A lot like a case. This term on the SEC involves the FTC, right In the last term. We have a case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission so called disgorgement power. That is its ability to go to court and say you the wrongdoer. Somebody who violated securities fraud laws have to give back the money you took and the Supreme Court. Trim that power from the SEC eventually said, You really have to make sure you're getting the money back to investors who were defrauded. You have to focus on the net proceeds that the wrongdoer got. But left the disgorgement power otherwise intact. And so this is some degree the same case involving the Federal Trade Commission, which also tries to go to court to get money from wrongdoers, the differences that is a completely different statutes. It's a federal statute that governs the FTC that says that the power to go to court to get an injunction and The question is essentially whether an injunction includes an injunction that says you the wrongdoer at to pay money back. Most federal appeals court has said yes, the FTC has that power. There is one that recently said no, it doesn't and that is very likely The reason Scream court decided to get involved. So then we can't draw any conclusions from the case involving the SEC. You might be able to get a general leaning that the court is not looking to do something radical in this area. Though it is a question of statutory interpretation. Both cases are also at least to some degree about the traditional powers of courts. No, I won't leave go into this argument with the idea that the court might not want to radically cut back on what has been a long established along understood power of the Federal Trade Commission. And there's a case involving a challenge to another federal agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And it's regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the more than $300 billion in dividend that have gone into the U. S. Treasury. This has echoes of two cases from last term. Yeah, You know, I think about it half the cases this term or follow up from cases last term. This line is somewhat connected to the fight over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the last term. The main issue in this case, however, is something that is somewhat different. I'll try to explain it. Under federal law, Fannie Mae and Freddie back, give the vast majority of their profit to the Treasury. They don't go to the shareholders. And this all stems from The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after the financial crisis, and investors are challenging that called profit sweep, and they have a couple different arguments for why they think that profits sweep is illegal. And what it seemed to be. The main event is the F A. A, the agency that oversees Fannie and Freddie arguing that under federal law, we air the conservator of Fannie and Freddie and under federal law, you can't You over something involving our conservatorship of those two entities is also a second claim in the case that is similar to the one in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case. The investors argue that the FAA is unconstitutionally structured because the director is two independent from the president can't be fired by the president for any reason. And they say that because of That unconstitutional structure that this Prophet sweep must be thrown out. Back. In the last term. The court entertained a similar claim about the CF PB and said it's unconstitutionally structured. But the only thing we have to do to fix it is to say the president can fire the director for any reason. So it would be a big leap for the court to say that the remedy for any Nationality about the FAA is that we would throw out this extremely important provision that lets them collect the profits of fading Freddy Greg. Last term, there was a gun case a Second Amendment case that turned out to be moved and justice Brett Cavanaugh mentioned other cases coming down the pike, have they taken up any gun cases? They haven't and it's a bit of a head scratcher. To be honest, Justice Kavanagh did indicate he's eager to take up a Second Amendment cave..

Supreme Court Federal Trade Commission Securities and Exchange Commis Fannie Mae Bloomberg Supreme Court Facebook Freddie Freddy Greg Freddie Mac Consumer Financial Protection Donald Trump Federal Housing Finance Agency Robo Bloomberg Radio FAA Bloomberg
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:40 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Week in an almost simultaneous threat to the entire region. The US houses in session today, something that almost never happens On a Saturday, members were called back to Washington to deal with mail delivery disruptions. I'm Christopher Cruz Thiss is Bloomberg Law with Joon Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. First case, we will argue today is case. 19 7 15 Donald Trump versus Maze Ours USA. There may not be a case that draws as much attention as the trump subpoena cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term, but there will certainly be defining cases and perhaps even decisions that overturn precedent. I've been talking to Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store about the new term and Greg We were discussing one of those cases that challenges precedent, a case where religious rights and gay rights seemed to collide. And in all three cases last term involving religion, the court expanded religious liberties with either 72 or 5 to 4 votes. Yes, they certainly have. And not all of those cases were under the guise of the Constitution. There's also a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Some of the cases have involved that the case they got a lot of attention this last term involving the obamacare contraceptive requirement. That was actually primarily case about federal administrative law and whether the Trump administration have checked all the boxes in terms of giving a broad villas exemption to employers and universities. From that requirement. This will be certainly the biggest case that directly deals with the constitutional free exercise class. So now is this Facebook's first appearance at the court in a case involving text messages and robo calls, it is remember this last term, they have a case. Challenged the federal ban on robo calls. Mobile phones in the Supreme Court held that law and the Facebook case was sort of waiting in the wings for the court to resolve that and when it gets into it, not the constitutional questions of the earlier case, but kind of nothing. Both questions of what really is a robo call the law. This is a case about somebody who sued Facebook because he got access he didn't want And the question is whether those text messages are covered under the statute and whether therefore he can press a lawsuit against Facebook, potentially a class action suit that was involved big money a little more of a granular case, but certainly something that is of great interest to a lot of people in the community. Can we tell where this is going from the robo call case. This term we're just about everyone agreed that nobody likes Robo calls. I'm not sure we can. You know, Rubble calls for the Supreme Court justices. They'll understand what those are. This case involves a little more of a question about the mechanism for sending these text messages. It is, as I said, in question of interpreting this federal statute and not so much the Constitution. No, I'm not ready to say that. I have any strong views on how this case is likely to come out on what we saw in this last term. Now. Another case that seems A lot like a case. This term on the SEC involves the FTC, right In the last term. We have a case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission so called disgorgement power. That is its ability to go to court and say you the wrong you're somebody who violated securities fraud laws have to give back the money, You talk and the Supreme Court. Trim that power from the SEC eventually said, You really have to make sure you're getting the money back to investors who were defrauded. You have to focus on the net proceeds that the wrongdoer got. But left the disgorgement power otherwise intact. And so this is some degree the same case involving the Federal Trade Commission, which also tries to go to court to get money from wrongdoers. The difference is that it's a completely different statutes. It's a federal statute that governs the FTC that says they're the power to go to court to get an injunction and The question is essentially whether than injunction includes an injunction that says you the wrongdoer at to pay money back. Most federal appeals court has said yes, the FDA has that power. There is one that recently said no, it doesn't and that is very likely The reason Scream court decided to get involved. So then we can't draw any conclusions from the case involving the SEC. We might be able to get a general leaning that the court is not looking to do something radical in this area. Though it is a question of statutory interpretation. Both cases are also at least to some degree about the traditional powers of courts. No, I won't leave go into this argument with the idea that the court might not want to radically cut back on what has been a long established along understood power of the Federal Trade Commission. And there's a case involving a challenge to another federal agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And it's regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the more than $300 billion in dividend that have gone into the U. S. Treasury. This has echoes of two cases from last term. Yeah, You know, I think about it half the cases this term or follow up from from cases. Last term A. This one is somewhat connected to the fight over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the last term. The main issue in this case, however, is something that is somewhat different. I'll try to explain it. Under federal law, Fannie Mae and Freddie back give the vast majority of their profit to the Treasury. They don't go to the shareholders and this all stems from the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after the financial crisis. And investors are challenging that so called Prophet sweep, and they have a couple different arguments for why they think that profits week is illegal. And what has seemed to be. The main event is the F A. A, the agency that oversees Fannie and Freddie arguing that under federal law, we air the conservator of Fannie and Freddie and under federal law, you can't You over something involving our conservatorship of those two entities is also a second claim in the case that is similar to the one in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case. The investors argue that the FAA FAA is unconstitutionally structured because the director is two independent from the president can't be fired by the president for any reason..

Supreme Court Federal Trade Commission Securities and Exchange Commis Fannie Mae Bloomberg Supreme Court Facebook Freddie Federal Housing Finance Agency Donald Trump Freddie Mac Consumer Financial Protection Robo US Greg We Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg Christopher Cruz Thiss
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

07:51 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Rises on small streams and isolate admired moderate flooding across South Texas. There's also a few tornadoes possible today, an overnight over portions of the lower Middle Texas coast. Flying plane. Han is expected to make landfall on the coast later today. I'm an Cates. Thiss is Bloomberg Law with Joon Grasso from Bloomberg Radio First case. We will argue today is Case 19 7 15 Donald Trump versus Maze ours. USA. There may not be a case that draws as much attention as the trump subpoena cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term, But there will certainly be defining cases and perhaps even decisions that overturn precedent. I've been talking to Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store about the new term. And Greg. We were discussing one of those cases that challenges precedent, a case where religious rights and gay rights seemed to collide, and in all three cases last term involving religion, the court expanded religious liberties with either 722 or 5 to 4 votes. Yes, they certainly have. And not all of those cases were under the guise of the Constitution. There's also a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Some of the cases have involved that the case they got a lot of attention this last term involving the obamacare contraceptive requirement. That was actually primarily case about federal administrative law and whether the Trump administration had checked all the boxes in terms of giving a broad religious exemption to employers and universities. From that requirement, this will be certainly point the biggest case that directly deals with the constitutional free exercise class. So now is this Facebook's first appearance at the court in a case involving text messages and robo calls, it is remember this last term, they had a cave that challenged the federal ban on Robo calls. Mobile phones with the Supreme Court held that law. And the Facebook case was sort of waiting in the wings for the court to resolve that and when it gets into is not a constitutional questions of the earlier case, but kind of nothing. Both questions of what really is a robo call the law. This is a case about somebody who sued Facebook because You got access just he didn't want And the question is whether those text messages are covered under the statute and whether therefore he can press a lawsuit against Facebook, potentially a class action suit that was involved big money a little more of a granular case, but certainly something that is of great interest to a lot of people in the community. Can we tell where this is going from the robo call case. This term we're just about everyone agreed that nobody likes Robo calls. I'm not sure we can. You know, Robo calls for the Supreme Court justices. They'll understand what those are. This case involves a little more of a question about the mechanism for sending these text messages. It is, as I said, a question of interpreting this federal statute and not so much the Constitution. No, I'm not ready to say that. I have any strong views on how this case is likely to come out on what we saw in this last term. Now. Another case that seems A lot like a case. This term on the SEC involves the FTC, right In the last term, We had a case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission so called disgorgement power. That is its ability to go to court and say you the wrong you're somebody who violated securities fraud laws have to give back the money you took and the Supreme Court. Trim that power from the FCC eventually said, You really have to make sure you're getting the money back to investors who were defrauded. You have to focus on the net proceeds that the wrongdoer guy But left the disgorgement power otherwise intact. And so this is to some degree the same case involving the Federal Trade Commission, which also tried to go to court to get money from wrongdoers. The difference is that it's a completely different statutes. It's a federal statute that governs the FTC that says they're the power to go to court to get an injunction and The question is essentially whether it's an injunction includes an injunction that says you the wrongdoer have to pay money back. Most federal appeals court has said yes, the FTC has that power. There is one that recently said no, it doesn't and that is very likely that the Supreme Court decided to get involved. So then we can't draw any conclusions from the case involving the SCC might be able to get a general leaning that the court is not looking to do something radical in this area, though it is a question of statutory interpretation. Both cases are also at least to some degree about the traditional powers, of course. No, I won't leave go into this argument with the idea that the court might not want to radically cut back on what has been a long established along understood power of the Federal Trade Commission. And there's a case involving a challenge to another federal agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And it's regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the more than $300 billion in dividend that have gone into the U. S. Treasury. This has echoes of two cases from last term. Yeah, You know, I think about it half the cases this term or follow up from from cases last term, this line is somewhat connected to the fight over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the last term. The main issue in this case, however, is something that is somewhat different. I'll try to explain it. Under federal law, Fannie Mae and Freddie back, give the vast majority of their profit to the Treasury. They don't go to the shareholders. And this all stems from The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after the financial crisis, and investors are challenging that called profit sweep, and they have a couple different arguments for why they think that profits sweep is illegal. And what has seemed to be. The main event is the F A. A, the agency that oversees Fannie and Freddie arguing that under federal law, we air the conservator of Fannie and Freddie and under federal law, you can't You over something involving our conservatorship of those two entities. There's also a second claim in the case that is similar to the one in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case. The investors, aren't you that the FAA FAA is unconstitutionally structured because the director is two independent from the president can't be fired by the president for any reason. And they say that because of That unconstitutional structure that this prophet sweet must be thrown out. Back. In the last term. The court entertained a similar claim about the PB and said it's unconstitutionally structured. But the only thing we have to do to fix it is to say the president can fire the director for any reason. So it would be a big leap for the court to say that the remedy for any unconstitutionality about the age of a is that we would throw out this extremely important provision that lets them collect the profits. Fannie and Freddie Greg. Last term, there was a gun case a Second Amendment case that turned out to be moved and justice Brett Cavanaugh mentioned other cases coming down the pike, have they taken up any gun cases? They haven't and it's a bit of a head scratcher. To be honest, Justice Kavanagh did indicate he was eager to take up a Second Amendment cave. Other conservative justices have as well, including Justice Thomas has been very outspoken, but the court had a Second Amendment case this current term involving Gun transportation restrictions in New York City within the city changed this law.

Supreme Court Federal Trade Commission Fannie Mae Facebook Bloomberg Supreme Court Robo Freddie Greg Securities and Exchange Commis Freddie Freddie Mac Consumer Financial Protection Donald Trump Federal Housing Finance Agency Bloomberg Fannie president
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

07:05 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Cases included 36 workers returning from Iraq and 32 crew members of a Russian freighter. I'm Christopher Cruz. Thiss is Bloomberg Law with Joon Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. First case. We will argue today is Case 19 7 15 Donald Trump versus Maze ours. USA. There may not be a case that draws as much attention as the trump subpoena cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term, but there will certainly be defining cases and perhaps even decisions that overturn precedent. I've been talking to Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store about the new term and Greg We were discussing one of those cases that challenges President a case where religious rights and gay rights seemed to collide. And in all three cases last term involving religion, the court expanded religious liberties with either 722 or 5 to 4 votes. Yes, they certainly have. And not all of those cases were under the guise of the Constitution. There's also a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Some of the cases have involved that the case they got a lot of attention this last term involving the obamacare contraceptive requirement that was actually primarily a case about federal administrative law and whether the Trump administration had checked all the boxes in terms of giving a broad villages. Gumption to employers and universities from that requirement. This will be certainly when the biggest case that directly deals with the constitutional free exercise class So now is this space books first appearance at the court in a case involving text messages and robo calls, it is. Remember this last term, they had a case that Challenge the federal ban on robo calls mobile phones. The Supreme Court held that law and the Facebook case was sort of waiting in the wings for the court to resolve that and when it gets into is not a constitutional questions of the earlier case, but kind of nothing. Both questions of what really is a robo call in the law that this was a case about somebody who sued Facebook because You got access he didn't want And the question is whether those text messages are covered under the statute and whether therefore he can press a lawsuit against Facebook, potentially a class action suit that was involved big money a little more of a granular case, but certainly something that is of great interest to a lot of people in the community. Can we tell where this is going from the robo call case. This term we're just about everyone agreed that nobody likes Robo calls. I'm not sure we can. You know, Robo calls for the Supreme Court justices. They'll understand what those are. This case involves a little more of a question about the mechanism for sending these text messages. It is, as I said, a question of interpreting this federal statute and not so much the Constitution. No, I'm not ready to say that. I have any strong views on how this case is likely to come out based on what we saw in this last term. Now another case that seems A lot like a case. This term on the SEC involves the FTC, right In the last term, We had a case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission so called disgorgement power. That is its ability to go to court and say you the wrongdoer. Somebody who violated securities fraud laws have to give back the money you took and the Supreme Court. Trim that power from the SEC eventually said, You really have to make sure you're getting the money back to investors who were defrauded. You have to focus on the net proceeds that the wrongdoer got. But left the disgorgement power otherwise intact. And so this is some degree the same case involving the Federal Trade Commission, which also tries to go to court to get money from wrongdoers. The difference is that it's a completely different statutes. It's a federal statute that governs the FTC that says they're the power to go to court to get an injunction and The question is essentially whether an injunction includes an injunction that says you the wrongdoer at to pay money back. Most federal appeals court has said yes, the FDA has that power. There is one that recently said no, it doesn't and that is very likely The reason Scream court decided to get involved. So then we can't draw any conclusions from the case involving the SEC. We might be able to get a general leaning that the court is not looking to do something radical in this area. Though it is a question of statutory interpretation. Both cases are also at least to some degree about the traditional powers of courts. No, I won't leave go into this argument with the idea that the court might not want to radically cut back on what has been a long established along understood power of the Federal Trade Commission. And there's a case involving a challenge to another federal agency, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And it's regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the more than $300 billion in dividend that have gone into the U. S. Treasury. This has echoes of two cases from last term. Yeah, You know, I think about it half the cases this term or follow up from from cases last term. This line is somewhat connected to the fight over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from the last term. The main issue in this case, however, is something that is somewhat different. I'll try to explain it. Under federal law, Fannie Mae and Freddie back give the vast majority of their profit to the Treasury. They don't go to the shareholders and this all stems from the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after the financial crisis. And investors are challenging that called profit sweep, and they have a couple different arguments for why they think that profit sweep is illegal. And what has seemed to be. The main event is the F A. A, the agency that oversees Fannie and Freddie arguing that under federal law, we air the conservator of Fannie and Freddie and under federal law, you can't You over something involving our conservatorship of those two entities. There's also a second claim in the case that is similar to the one in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau case. The investors argue that the FAA FAA is unconstitutionally structured because the director is two independent from the president can't be fired by the president for any reason. And they say that because of That unconstitutional structure that this Prophet sweep must be thrown out. Back in the last term. The court entertained a similar claim about the PB and said it's unconstitutionally structured. But the only thing we have to do to fix it is to say the president can fire the director for any reason. So it would be a big leap for the court to say that the remedy for any unconstitutionality about the FAA FAA is that we would throw out this extremely important provision that lets them collect the.

Supreme Court Fannie Mae Federal Trade Commission Securities and Exchange Commis Bloomberg Supreme Court Freddie Consumer Financial Protection Robo Freddie Mac Facebook Donald Trump Federal Housing Finance Agency Greg We president Iraq Bloomberg Radio Bloomberg
"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:45 min | 1 year ago

"bloomberg supreme court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Unusually large number of immigration cases Bloomberg from welcome to Bloomberg law I'm June Grasso had in this hour everybody wins a little in a Supreme Court Superfund cleanup case in requiring unanimity for jury verdicts the court splinters over president virtual courts are dealing with issues of large small and ridiculous and remember the former broke he wants to get out of prison early for novel reason this week the Supreme Court overturned a decades old precedent deciding that states must require unanimous juries to convict defendants of serious crimes but the six to three decision highlighted deep divides among the justices overhearing to their past opinions joining me is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store so Greg tell us a little about the case there were two states Louisiana and Oregon that for certain crimes still said that an eleven to one or even attended to jury verdict is enough to convict somebody and the Supreme Court over ruling in nineteen seventy two ruling that allowed states to do that they said that is a violation of the constitution six amendment was an unusual line up sixty three with Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan in the descent was their descent related to the issues presented or two whether precedent should be followed here it was really about the latter at justice leader wrote for the group and most of what he focused on was not whether the nineteen seventy two decision was correct but whether this would be too much of a burden on Louisiana and Oregon.

Bloomberg June Grasso president Supreme Court Greg store Louisiana Chief Justice John Roberts Samuel Alito Elena Kagan Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Oregon
Supreme Court eyes abortion challenges ahead of 2020

Politics, Policy, Power and Law

08:05 min | 2 years ago

Supreme Court eyes abortion challenges ahead of 2020

"Summer is definitely over the Supreme Court justices returned to work on Monday as the October twenty nineteen term officially begins and waiting for the justices will be several abortion cases that are getting harder for them to avoid joining me is Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store Greg cases involving challenges to laws in Louisiana and Indiana will be before the justices in Tuesday's private conference but neither of the cases directly challenges roe V. Wade or Planned Parenthood V. Casey so what's the concern the concern for abortion rights advocates is that the court could use these cases to start chipping away at at the the the core abortion right even if it doesn't directly consider whether to overturn rowing Casey both these two cases do raise questions about that big ruling from a few years ago where the Supreme Court said struck down texas' Lule requiring doctors to have hospital admitting privileges that was seen at the time as the biggest abortion rights ruling victory in a generation since then of course the course composition has changed and there's at least the potential that the court will start pushing back on that this term. so let's talk about that Louisiana case which seems to replicate the Texas case yeah it's very very similar in terms of what it does it requires doctors at the gonna perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital nearby and abortion rights advocates say it's really hard to keep those privileges and the the effect of that would be that it closes a number of clinics around the state leaves a stay with only one open clinic Louisiana disputes that in a federal appeals court said essentially we agree with Louisiana about the impact of this law it's not nearly as great as what happened in that Texas case in there for we can distinguish it from what the Supreme Court said in Texas and up hold the law. the Supreme Court has has previously stop this law from going into effect chief justice John Roberts joined with the court's five liberals to do that back in February now the court's going to say whether it's going to take up the the appeal on the merits if they do really all bets are off in terms of which way the court I go what what position does that put the chief in a difficult position this is not you know he even when there are there are precedents he clearly does not like his preference is to move slowly it's pretty clear that on the abortion issue that in the last term the court did not have a whole lot of appetite for getting involved in and no doubt he played a big role in that it's going to be hard for him because he was at the center in that ruling from twenty sixteen that the taxes ruling he didn't agree with it then probably doesn't agree with it now but he understands the perception of win the court overturns a precedent it is it's very striking and as he put it as confirmation hearings that that decade they have a goal go with a jolt to the system and the perception would be that the court is rolling back abortion rights not because they the earlier decision was necessarily wrong but because they're different members on the Supreme Court we now have to trump appointees and those trump appointees almost certainly would make the difference if that's the direction the court went tell us about the Indiana case which raises similar issues yeah this is a law that says after away for one wants to have an abortion she has to wait for eighteen hours after she has an ultrasound now the state already had an ultrasound requirements it all already have an eighteen hour waiting period for other types of so called informed consent requirements but then the state decided to combine those things. if the you have to wait for eighteen hours after the ultrasound and the problem from the abortion rights standpoint is for a lot of one women that means they have to drive hundreds of miles to a clinic a long way away and make two trips there or stay over night they are so it does make it significantly harder for some women to actually get an abortion and they say that makes all the difference in this case is that a federal appeals court struck down the law so if the court's going to take this one up the evidence is going to come from the other side it's going to be the conservative justices who say Hey we disagree with that lower court opinion we want to take it off the court right now has both these two cases the Louisiana hospital privileges case in the in Indiana weeding carry case before it and they're gonna have to decide are we taking just one of these cases we taking both of these cases or for our somehow we can avoid taking either of these cases and we we talk about the cheese being sort of the pivotal vote now but as far as taking the case they only need four votes so is it justice Cavanaugh who's the pivotal vote that's a good point he he may well be with especially when we're talking about that Indiana case where the lower court struck down the requirements and so yes it could be that the four conservative justices with justice Cavanaugh would vote to take up the case even though the chief doesn't Chief Justice doesn't want to take it up now that being said if you're the conservative looking at it realistically you you might only want to do that if you're pretty confident you're going you're going to get the chief justice's vote alternately when the court rules because then you're going to need that fifth vote but yes it is possible that that the four conservatives could agree to take it out without him necessarily without Roberts necessarily being part of that decision to justice Clarence Thomas has written about moving the abortion issue forward are the other. conservative justices as anxious to move it forward rapidly or are they in the mode of let's do it gradually. it's a bit of a continuing here justice Gorsuch is it seems to be largely with justice Thomas and having it you know a real desire to move quickly on this issue justice Cavanaugh in the last term there was one opinion he wrote when the court decided to to block that Louisiana hospital privileges law from taking effect he said he disagreed with that decision but then wrote a separate opinion saying why that step wasn't really that significant why will what he wanted the court to do by letting the if it had the court let the law take effect it would really have that big of an impact point being he's trying to say I'm not moving dramatically too I try to roll back abortion rights that sort of consistent with what we've seen from him in other areas of the law he may be like Roberts a bit of an incremental less when it comes to abortion right. one thing they can't avoid is that if they take these cases the decisions will come down in June most likely in the heat of the presidential campaign that's certainly not something that Roberts would once no and you know this is it this is a term that could be a very significant one they they have a couple other very high profile cases already they have the president trump's bid to eliminate the dock at the for deportation program they have cases involving whether federal job discrimination law covers sexual orientation and gender identity they're probably going to have a gun case that they that they act on and all these things could all happen at once and could very much but the Supreme Court front and center in the election campaign thanks so much Gregg as always for your insights that's Bloomberg news spring court reporter Greg

Reporter Supreme Court Bloomberg Supreme Court Eighteen Hours Eighteen Hour
Google and Uber invest $335 million in Lime scooters

Bloomberg Markets

02:02 min | 3 years ago

Google and Uber invest $335 million in Lime scooters

"Hi carol nine o'clock tonight wall street time isn't president trump announces his pick to succeed anthony kennedy on the us supreme court sources tell bloomberg appeals judge thomas hardiman is solidly in the mix also judges brad kavanagh amy coney barrett and raymond catholic bloomberg supreme court reporter greg stohr says whomever the president chooses is likely to be a reliable conservative both parties and especially the republicans have gotten very very good at picking the type of justice who will be reliable vote for them down the road we don't see as much shift these days bloomberg radio we'll have live coverage of president trump's announcement again it begins at nine o'clock wall street time the face of brexit is out boris johnson has resigned as prime minister theresa may's foreign secretary hours after brexit secretary david davis did the same may is standing firm though on her strategy for leaving the eu the proposal that will take back control of our borders our money and but do so do so in a way that protects jocks allows us to strike new trade deals through an independent trade policy and keep people safe and our union together in his resignation letter johnson accused may have raising the white flag of surrender into goshi with the eu at wimbledon raphael nee dow roger federer and serena williams advanced to the quarterfinals federer did it in straightsets one more those and he'll beat his own record winning streak at the all england club global news twenty four hours a day on air and at tick tock on twitter powered by more than twenty seven hundred journalists and analysts in more than one hundred twenty countries i'm nathan hager this is bloomberg thanks nathan now with our other top stories i'm emma chandra is teaming up with line to rent out scooters through in tap line service let's customers renske uses and then leave them on the sidewalk for the next person to pick up uber's investment is part of a three hundred and thirty five million dollar financing round alphabets venture arm is leading the deal which values the scooter business at one point one billion dollars details of the.

Nathan Hager England Club Serena Williams David Davis Prime Minister Bloomberg Reporter Brad Kavanagh Thomas Hardiman Emma Chandra President Trump Twitter Roger Federer EU Secretary Theresa Boris Johnson Donald Trump