17 Burst results for "California District Court"

"california district court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

05:42 min | 7 months ago

"california district court" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Biden and the democratic led Senate confirmed diverse slate of 40 district and appellate judges in 2021 Beating out the first year totals for every president since Ronald Reagan He diversified the bench doubling the number of black women at the circuit court level Of those nominees 20 were black 14 were Hispanic or Latino 13 were Asian American and Pacific Islander and three were Native American And there were a number of verse the first openly LGBT woman appointed to a federal circuit court The first black judge on the federal circuit Court of Appeals the first Asian American woman on the D.C. circuit court and the first Muslim federal judge But Biden will face more challenges getting judges confirmed in 2022 Especially since there could be a closing window after the midterm elections Here to discuss those challenges is Bloomberg law reporter Madison Alder Tell us broadly what has Biden accomplished as far as judicial vacancies in his first year By not a historic year of judicial nomination in 2021 he confirmed with the help of democratic led Bennett 40 district at a college judges which is the most of any modern president since Ronald Reagan And a lot of those nominees were very diverse They brought both professional and demographic diversity to their respective courts which was a really big priority for the Biden administration as well So tell us about the different kinds of diversity So in addition to demographic diversity Biden has prioritized nominating people who don't have a traditional path to the bench professionally That includes people who have experiences public defenders It's probably the biggest group about 30% of his nominees so far have had some public defense experience according to the alliance for justice which is the progressive legal advocacy group And that means that Biden's nominees are kind of unique in this way particularly to him in this administration They're not just demographically diverse So many of them and women many of them have been women of color They also have this added doctor of having a background that is very different for the federal judiciary So were the progressive groups happy about this where they pleased with his progress I not largely met expectations from progressives in terms of the diversity of his nominees At the beginning of the administration progressives were really hopeful that Biden would bring more diversity to the doctor judiciary and do it quickly considering that he has experience as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee He's done nominations on the other side of this before So they were really hopeful that he would make good on these promises and efforts And then White House complicated remus laid out to Democrats early on in the administration that they wanted more demographic diversity more professional diversity and things progressive groups have largely been pretty pleased with the way the Biden handled his first year So though 20% of the nominees were Hispanic or Latino some Hispanic and Latino groups expressed frustration with that The Mexican American legal defense and educational fund was disappointed with Biden's decision to announce intent to nominate Michelle child to the D.C. circuit This is the second D.C. circuit vacancy that Biden has had open The D.C. circuit is obviously a very important court often seen as the second highest court in the land The Supreme Court And all this was really hoping to see the first Latino nominated the D.C. circuit This would have been the first in history And I spoke to Thomas scientist who was the president and general counsel of Maldives He says that they forwarded nomination to The White House They were talking to them But ultimately Michelle child do the black woman was the intended nominee They're disappointed with this They're also disappointed with the nomination to one of the California district courts which they believe didn't include as many Hispanic and Latino nominees as it could have so they'd like to see more of this in the 2022 and told me that there are certainly seats that they're going to be watching for Hispanic and Latino nominees And certainly there were a lot of firsts in terms of judicial appointments The first openly LGBT woman on a federal circuit court The first black judge on the federal Court of Appeals The first Muslim federal judge to name a few but there are still possibilities for more first in 2022 so tell us about that The American constitution society told me that she's going to be looking for Biden to increase diversity meaning more LGBTQ lawyers labor side attorneys but also she's going to be watching for vacancies on the third circuit which has never had a black woman before And the district of Idaho which has never had a female judge in its history Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show I'll continue this conversation with Bloomberg law reporter Madison Alder and we'll talk about the challenges president Joe Biden faces in judicial nominations coming up this year And later on the show former president Donald Trump's two eldest children are being subpoenaed in the investigation by the New York attorney general and their fighting back in court Remember.

Biden Madison Alder federal circuit Court of Appea D.C. circuit court Ronald Reagan Biden administration D.C. Senate Judiciary Committee alliance for justice Mexican American legal defense Bloomberg Senate Bennett Michelle remus White House federal Court of Appeals Maldives
"california district court" Discussed on This Day In Esoteric Political History

This Day In Esoteric Political History

05:07 min | 1 year ago

"california district court" Discussed on This Day In Esoteric Political History

"Hello and welcome to this day in esoteric. Political history from radio topa. My is jody africans this day august thirty first. Nineteen forty two an. Aclu lawyer is arguing in california district court that the internment of japanese americans is unconstitutional The next day september first the judge would rule in the case upholding the government's wartime detention of japanese americans and japanese nationals. This fight and this ruling was really the start of a long legal battle and at the heart of it was a man named fred. Komatsu who had resisted the order to report to a detention center. Komatsu's case attracted the attention of the aclu and after this ruling it would eventually go all the way to the supreme court where two years later. The supreme court upheld his conviction for violating the order. But they also issued another ruling declaring the internment camps on constitutional. Get a little bit into that. But that ruling at the supreme court and that moment that supreme court a few years later effectively ended japanese internment but staying in this moment of the first year of japanese. Interment the case of fred. Kara matsu and lots more here to discuss as always are nicole. Hammer of columbia. And kelly carter jackson of wellesley low. There jetty pay their. Let me take half a step back and just paint the picture of what we're talking about here. Which is a hundred twenty thousand japanese and japanese americans throughout the american west. Who in the wake of pearl harbor are forced to leave their homes and businesses first to internment camps and then to concentration camps. We're talking about four years from the spring of nineteen forty two to early nineteen forty six families broken apart. Businesses lost tragedy. that is the big picture Now zoom all the way into this really fascinating character of fred komatsu and his experience Nikki where does where does the saga begin for him. So komatsu grew up in oakland california. And i think for him. The story starts with the beginning of the us involvement in world war two even before pearl harbor at the making of munitions and the reorganizing of the economy komatsu had tried to get involved. He tried to get jobs in different factories to help out with the war effort and he was repeatedly either turned away for being japanese-american or fired for being japanese-american and he had this experience of discrimination And then when it becomes clear that there's going to be an evacuation order and that japanese and japanese americans are start going to be forced out going to be rounded up. He tries to escape this. He actually go so far as he gets surgery on his eyelids in order to try to change his appearance so that he doesn't look japanese He changes his name to clyde. Sarah and says that. He's of spanish and hawaiian heritage..

supreme court california district court Komatsu Aclu Kara matsu kelly carter jackson fred jody pearl harbor fred komatsu komatsu wellesley american west nicole government columbia Nikki oakland california us
"california district court" Discussed on Techmeme Ride Home

Techmeme Ride Home

02:03 min | 1 year ago

"california district court" Discussed on Techmeme Ride Home

"A us based contractor claims that why stole its tech and pressured it to build a back door into a sensitive surveillance project in pakistan goading. The wall street journal the contractor buena park california based business efficiency solutions. llc or es says in a lawsuit filed wednesday in california district court that weiwei required it to set up a system in china that gives way access to sensitive information about citizens and government officials from a safe cities surveillance project in pakistan's second largest city of lahore muhammed cameron khan chief operating officer of the poon punjab at safe cities authority which oversees the lahore project said. The authority has begun looking into s. his allegations quote. Our team is examining the accusations and sought an explanation from weiwei. Mr khan said in an interview we have also put data security check on why after this issue so far there has been no evidence of any data stealing by way he said a while. We spokesperson said. The company doesn't comment on ongoing legal cases but she added quote while way respects the intellectual property of others and there is no evidence while we ever implemented any backdoor in our products and quote also by the by from the china textile sources are telling the information that the chinese government took a steak and a board seat in bite dances beijing entity back in april quote the move gives beijing more insight into the inner workings of by dance. The world's most valuable privately held company which owns some of the most popular apps in china. Such as diane to chow along with tick-tock. The government's right to one seat on a three person board of directors at beijing bite dance technology company ltd which holds chinese business licenses related to diane and chow raises questions. About how much more influence. Beijing can exert over by dances a whole a year before. Making the dance deal. The chinese government also acquired a stake and aboard seat in a domestic entity of nasdaq-listed chinese social media firm wybo according to china's corporate records. And why bose regulatory filings. Why bo operates a popular twitter like micro blog in china.

weiwei california district court muhammed cameron khan poon punjab safe cities authority lahore Mr khan pakistan chinese government buena park china The wall street journal es llc beijing california beijing bite dance technology chow diane us
"california district court" Discussed on AM 1350 WEZS

AM 1350 WEZS

01:30 min | 1 year ago

"california district court" Discussed on AM 1350 WEZS

"The latest when you need it on demand from Fox News and Amazon, Alexa Legal dispute between an MBA executive and a California police officer appears to be over. Alan Strickland has dropped his lawsuit against Toronto Raptors President Messiah You Jerry filing for dismissal in California District court Wednesday. This stems from an incident following game six of the 2019 NBA finals as you Jerry attempted to join the Toronto Raptors on the court at Oracle Arena to celebrate their title win over the Golden State Warriors stricken claimed you Jerry had pushed him in the face and chest, causing him physical injuries that have kept him out of work. You Jerry deny the allegations with video later showing that's true. England had first shoved him over allegedly not having proper credentials to get on the floor. The Raptor president countersued Strickland. That complaint has also been dropped. Matt Napolitano, Fox News and Bruce Springsteen is facing a drunk driving charge in New Jersey, prompting Jeep to pause the Super Bowl television commercial that features him. A spokesperson for the National Park Service says Springsteen was arrested November 14th in the Gateway National Recreation Area. He received citations for driving while under the influence, reckless driving and consuming alcohol and uncle. Posed area. The spokesperson says Springsteen was cooperative throughout the process, Jeep released a statement saying, in part quote, it's right that we pause our big game commercial until the actual facts can be established and quote plus South by Southwest reveals its film lineup. Music documentaries Take center stage at this year's South by Southwest Film Festival With Charlie Xcx his career Doc Alone together is.

Jerry Bruce Springsteen Toronto Raptors Gateway National Recreation Ar Fox News California District court Jeep Alan Strickland president countersued Strickland Toronto Amazon California Golden State Warriors Oracle Arena Matt Napolitano Charlie Xcx NBA National Park Service officer
"california district court" Discussed on SuperTalk WTN 99.7

SuperTalk WTN 99.7

11:29 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on SuperTalk WTN 99.7

"Internment camps what they're calling them this ends a procedure known as the Florida settlement agreement requires children be held no longer than twenty days trump administration says ring and in them you know this could be challenged immediately by the ACLU and others we'll see what the courts say the this according to the hill the decision a momentous change in detainee policy the administration is sold as a disincentive for people crossing the border the acting homeland security secretary Kevin meddling in said in a statement today this rule allows the federal government to enforce immigration laws as passed by Congress so here's how this works these immigrant families better known as the legal families could be held for the duration of their court proceedings in other words they're not just going to process them and let him go and have him come back for a court appearance they're going to keep them you will be detained and they said that usually these court proceedings will happen within three months and then we'll decide whether your request for asylum is granted if it is then you know we process you was an asylum seeker if not we throw you back Magdalene then said the new rule takes aim of the twenty fifteen reinterpretation of the Florida settlement agreement and what's your California District Court ruled accompanied miners are subject to the same detention limits as unaccompanied minors that twenty fifteen change she says quote has generally forced the government to release families in the country after just twenty days incentivizing illegal entry adding to the growing backlog in immigration proceedings and often delaying immigration proceedings for many years trump administration frequently blames the floor as agreement for the spike or the floor as settlement agreement in the spike in family border crossings of the last few years claiming the promise of eventual release creates an incentive to enter the country illegally so today it defended the changes closing the loophole exploited by human smugglers house homeland security committee chairman Bennie Thompson Democrat from Mississippi however hand the move saying it will put even more stress on our immigration system and add to the chaos the administration continues to create says the trump administration is managed to find a new low when it's continue despicable treatment of migrant children and families terminating the floor as settlement is illegal and goes against our long standing American values about the treatment of children how is it illegal you folks said you didn't want I'm separated from the family so they're not they all get the staying in the detention center together it's brilliant absolutely brilliant the new rule would establish new standards for conditions in detention centers while simultaneously removing that twenty day maximum tension limits that has existed since the original nineteen ninety seven court ruling and the two agencies a created the rule the department homeland security in the department of health and Human Services said in a joint statement today large numbers of alien families are entering illegally across the southern border hoping that they will be released into the interior rather than detain during the removal proceedings promulgating this rule in seeking termination of the F. as a that's the floor as some agreement are important steps towards an immigration system that is humane and operates consistently with the intent of Congress the rule will be published in the Federal Register on Friday and will be effective sixty days later if it's approved by the courts however the process is likely to take significantly longer Madeline says obviously there will be litigation as you know all new immigration rules of face litigation in my career under the terms of the nineteen ninety seven consent decree that eventually led to the twenty day limit in Florida as the regulation must be approved by judge Dolly M. gene of United States District Court for the Central District of California who heard the original case Jean who was appointed by president Obama denying the administration's request last year to extend family detentions after twenty fifteen ruling that the officials couldn't hold unaccompanied children and unlicensed facilities longer than twenty days but they said the upcoming litigation means the proposed rule could be significant later so I tried in court for what they've done is they've gone back and looked at why she said they couldn't be held and they said because of conditions and so on so they're fictional them they're gonna make the conditions are acceptable to what the judge said the condition should be given the gonna try it again and see what she says and this time she comes up with an excuse well she's just trying to keep it from happening if she said all well you know the conditions are not what they should be well we got the conditions fixed about that that a well we'll see Madeline says this rule contemplates terminating the florist settlement agreement and actually there's a legal proceeding just to do that coming out of the implementation so we do expect litigation but we do hope to be able to implement it as soon as possible a trump officials have sought to address the judge's concerns with indefinite detention by creating a federal government licensing regime which includes public audits and facilities conducted by third party and Madeline and painted a rosy picture of family detention units under the new rules as for example the first family residential center in Berks Pennsylvania has a sweet for each family to be held separately furniture bedding towels clothing toiletries toiletry all provided it's like staying above one of those extended stay places it's really cold slot better than what they had where they came from this I can tell you the end of the facilities would include medical care and educational wings as well as a leisure leisure activities for detainees but DHS as bed space for twenty five hundred to three thousand individuals in family units at current funding levels a fraction of the number of central Americans who claim asylum every month Madeline and blame Congress where Democrats work to limit the administration's capability to detain immigrants for the limited facilities he added this just a quick reminder we did ask Congress for additional family beds in the twenty nineteen budget process in the supplemental and we did not receive them so I think that's important to recall we've got all these Democrats talk about the deplorable conditions so they asked for for extra funding so that they could give them really nice conditions and the Democrats said now interesting isn't well the ACLU which has fought several trump administration immigration policy slammed the rule is yet another cruel attack on children it's really cruel tempted to keep children yeah and I Hampton inn I mean that's really horrible isn't it I mean how they live I mean a free meal breakfast bar and free lunch bar and free dinner bar all meals and snacks and games and leisure activities we'll throw in some education as well but that's just cruel because after all they came from a a dirt floor huts in Honduras I mean you know they expect much better than this in America this is just cruel and unusual all is rather unusual but it's not cruel this is yet another cruel attack on children they said that this administration is targeted again and again it's anti immigrant policies targeting children the children to stay with their parents and a and a flip in Hampton inn setting I don't know having a baby for all this but what they're what they're expecting is this is going to happen once word trickles down south but you don't get to come to America and just go anywhere you want to that you're gonna be held in a detention center even if it is a nice hotel they think the lot of people gonna say well I'm not going to come because the chances are the end of their three month stay they're going to be sent home and so it's all going to be for naught single three month vacation in the United States which can't leave the hotel you can check out but you can never leave Hey I got a great idea will call the detention center hotel California what do you think folks in California should love then in other news ladies and gentlemen we have any scene calling the electoral college a scam the gives too much power to white voters yeah that's exactly what the electoral college was designed to do what an idiot this proportionally values the votes of white people over those people of color she was commenting on the electoral college in an Instagram video shot while driving through a remote area well she using her phone while driving that's against the law in most states now isn't many votes here is you can sing the freshman congresswoman made the argument that the states the benefit most from the electoral college our states with higher percentages of white voters and that a popular vote system where every vote counts equally would be more fair says due to severe racial disparities in certain states the electoral college effectively Wayne's white voters over voters of color everything's about race with these votes in as opposed to a one person one vote system where all our votes are counted equally she says abolishing the electoral college is becoming an increasingly popular idea among top Democrats president trump of course lost the twenty sixteen popular vote by couple million won the election though some Democrats view the Democrat nominee could have an even greater popular vote lead and yet still lose I'm as good as it looks now it weathers and would you hear lays on amble Joe yeah yeah Biden recalling the assassination of Martin Luther king and Bobby Kennedy in the late seventies yeah he actually said them we'll get the audio for you might affect Luther if he if they will have them in now but it's it's under show prep let's see how many stories down is about one two three four fifth story down now the video Luther is not the first one that's there that's something else it's you got to go down to the second video and you can get that but it's if he does in and looked when he's talking I don't know he's talking to probably in Iowa somewhere but you talk about a senior moment I mean it looks like he doesn't even know where he is and he sounds like he doesn't even know where he is he just seems confused all the time bless his heart I mean it happens to the best of us but I mean this guy you got won't running the country for going to we'll try to get them play for you when we come back in a moment and we'll take your phone calls to six one five seven three seven nine nine eight six we're back right after this.

ACLU Florida twenty days three month twenty day one two three four fifth three months sixty days
"california district court" Discussed on Mac OS Ken

Mac OS Ken

03:58 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on Mac OS Ken

"Be dealt CNBC had the money's note, saying, we do think apple shareholders, have to contend with the volatility induced, by ongoing China US trade wars, and attempt the apple and its revenues and earnings per share on that point. He continued saying thus far apple has managed to avoid tariffs on finished products, but it's possible they will be impacted by future trade actions, as Sino American trade. Talks have broken down in recent weeks. The impact of tariffs will depend on both the applied tariff rate. And Apple's ability, the pass costs on the customers in our worst case scenario, twenty-five percent tariffs, no cost passed on. We estimate apples twenty nineteen earnings per share could fall by about twenty one percent. But did you hear the one about services? Ever core begins, its apple coverage, a new with outperform rating on apple shares dairying on these price target on the shares as two hundred five dollars. That's about five bucks lower than fact sheets average. According to the peace from barons. Sherlock, has Moriarty superman has lex Luther and apple it seems has Hagens Berman Sobel Shapiro told you last week of a lawsuit brought against apple by a couple of app, developers accusing the company of anticompetitive practices, the plaintiffs in the case where said by C net be represented by the firm Hagens Berman while that name may not be familiar to most of us, the piece pointed out that Hagens Berman had won a lawsuit against apple in twenty sixteen over e book, price-fixing. Why are we revisiting them because they're pursuing yet another case against apple? Apple insider says the Cupertino company has had its request to dismiss a case against it denied quoting the report an attempt by apple to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit over a lack of air filters and design of macbooks. And I max has been denied by California district court judge as the motion to dismiss the unwieldy complaint was apparently also unwieldy and its own right. Too unwieldy. It turns out. At issue, a class action lawsuit that accuses apple a bad design or something. Apparently there should be or should have been air filters and macbooks, and I max released since twenty thirteen the peace has plaintiffs arguing that their lack allow dust and debris. The slip in the accumulation of dust is said to call slowdowns and crashes when appearing on the logic board or could cause dark smudges or spots on the displays getting to the unwieldy part, the P says the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint against apple in February alleging a nationwide class and fourteen state some classes, forty six causes of action and covering one hundred twenty six pages in total the following month apple filed a motion to dismiss all forty six causes. Presiding over the case, judge Lucy Koh says, Apple's motion to dismiss was unwieldy, probably because the initial case was unwieldy. She wanted to both sides to choose five causes of action each that'll mean, work for apple lawyers, as well as the law firm, representing the plaintiffs Hagens Berman Sobel Shapiro, the two sides due to meet in court again on Wednesday. The nineteenth of June. Research kit and care kit programs may be getting more help from apple soon. Apple insiders says the company will be launching. An apple watch limited grants program later twenty nineteen.

apple Hagens Berman Sobel Shapiro Hagens Berman CNBC Lucy Koh US California Cupertino China Sherlock lex Luther Moriarty superman two hundred five dollars twenty-five percent twenty one percent
"california district court" Discussed on AM 1350 WEZS

AM 1350 WEZS

11:22 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on AM 1350 WEZS

"My feet. The other would say I like my. Sign. Oh, I'm gonna sit up. I got a great view the room and what are we talking about a couple of things we'd be talking about one. How about before we dive into the actual playoffs in the NBA. And on the ice co I Leonard filed a lawsuit against Nike over the use of his personal logo so trademarking logos that kind of stuff if you think it's not real. Oh, yes, it is. And here we are in the middle of the NBA finals. He's the raptors forward. He's their star. And he's got this other thing happening Monday that happened. He claimed that the shoe. If his attorneys filed it he claims shoe and sports manufacturer claimed ownership of the logo he designed in filing an application for copyright protection's. How about that nine page sucker in a southern California district court he saying it's fraud. He wants control over the of. Logo at going forward. We'll see what happens because he's got deal with new balance. And he ended the endorsement deal with Nike expired in September of last year in nets in the lawsuit. So the drawing that he said he authored was the continuation of drawings. He created since he was a kid in his college career, and it's an outline of his hand with the initials. K L, and the number two inside it be. It's gonna be interesting to see where a judge goes with this because he gave them permission to use the logo on some of the merchandise. And then he used it. Qui- use it on his own stuff that wasn't Nikes and Nike's objecting to him using the logo. So he wants control of it for all of his stuff. And this is one kind of follow from the point of view of what will they rule as far as the copyright is concerned, especially since initially they had permission, will they rule in favor of Nike against Leonard or can Leonard say these were my drawings. Here's what I said. But is that going to be here, say, you know, who knows? But it is one like I said to follow if you're curious about that kind of stuff, which I'm curious about because I've seen some insane copy write stories, and we've talked about them. We've had actually we've had a couple of different lawyers on to talk about copywriting and why do you care and what if you're listening to me, and you have a business, and you've got a clever name. And then somebody else sees the clever name and take it. And it you know it changes the game for you. And that's what happens. It's not a big deal, like everything else, until it is a big deal. And then it's crushing especially when it's your baby. Right. When it's yours, it's a whole different ballgame. So to speak a whole different game. All right. How about the warriors they've got home court advantage with that game to win which they needed. The raptors are really playing wellness. Let's face it. The warriors one one nine two one o four. So there's a lot of excitement for this series. And for very good reason, the tightness of it. The warriors have won a road game in twenty three consecutive straight playoff series. How about that? So they just extend that NBA record. They have all kinds of records, right? This team is loaded. They're like the avengers, they are the avengers of the NBA. I mean there's your great question if they win, if we're in the man cave pass me the chips the locale ones. Please. We would be talking about the Premacy of the warriors, and if they win another championship, which would be their last in Oakland because they're moving to a very expensive arena in San Francisco, that would be three. That'd be a three peat for them. And if you look up and down there, wine up, they got nothing but talented players. It's not just Steph curry. It's everybody else in between right from Kevin Durant to Klay Thompson to everyone team frankly is like even the water poi- is talented. The best league. I saw an interview on sixty minutes that John worth did. I thought it was so well done. He was such a great writer for Sports Illustrated. He may still do some work for Sports Illustrated. But. Anyway. What was so interesting was to look at some of the shots, that they got of the warriors and where they were hitting them. I mean from and this isn't something we didn't know but where they're hitting them from on believable range tossing it up. Easy goes down nice and easy, and whoever it is who's out there on the on the floor? They're like a dagger to your heart with what they're able to do just that deep there on Shakahb there on beatable. Draymond green Iggy when he's there DeMarcus cousins can't leave him out of it. It's crazy. And how much more can the warriors win in Oakland. This is it, this would be their farewell. Love letter last hurrah. So to speak in Oakland, because that's it after this, then they're moving to San Francisco. And, and would they say for one of the suites to get into one of the sweets, they've got a Butler, and they rating on, you know, this sort of stuff two million dollars two million dollars for season? That's one of those big corporations in Silicon Valley that can afford to sell out that for sure because that's crazy. Imagine who your entertaining, sweets. But this, this facility was a billion dollar facility and the owners took it all on themselves. They didn't pass it on with any kind of tax tax payers, or any of that kind of thing. So it makes a big difference, but add hand is Ken. They hit the three point. I mean, the three peat rather. So the warriors get that next game. It tips at nine o'clock eastern, it's at oracle arena and Golden State's favored by six points, but coli, Leonard has definitely played well in the playoffs, whether he doesn't like what's going on with his claw logo or not? He's certainly playing well. And so are some of his teammates too. I think this next game is going to be very, very interesting except for that. This is home advantage for team. That is just killer. I mean, just absolutely killer. We go to the ice. So it's a little bit, colder and a little bit different story when we talk about Saint Louis, and the Bruins except for this couldn't be a better series either. The series is tied at two on Thursday. The blues are in Bruin territory, and it's TD garden, obviously. And we've seen some wild things from, you know from this series so far hard to believe winding this down in June, when I think of hockey in June. So the blues with their four two win. Did it they, they shook up their lineup? They did what they had to do. And. You know, they're ready to roll when the blues were not happy, Craig Berube e who is the coach for the blue said he doesn't know why team gets penalized so much. He thinks they're getting the screws put to them in the Stanley Cup finals. But hey they pulled it out. So now they they're in Boston territory. And he's saying look the the penalties have been been horrible to us. We've taken fourteen penalties in one series. So he doesn't think the whistles being swallowed because some people are saying the whistle has been swallowed at some moments. But he's saying, no not. When you look at what's going on with my team, so we could probably argue about calls, but it would depend on, if you're a Bruins fan or a blues fan. Let's face it because whichever way that goes that's what you're gonna look at there. We all know that football makes the world go round and round and round and round although. Coming up in the next couple of weeks. I'm going to introduce you to some interesting powerlifters it's phenomenal. I was looking at some videos today. I don't know how anyone can lift the amount of weight that they do not have their body just collapsed underneath them. I mean really I I don't know how they do it so preseason football games. It's not about powerlifting narrow, though. It is when they're off the field for preseason games are too. Many says the Commissioner Roger Goodell. He wants to reduce the preseason schedule. You know, right now when the league and the player's associations have started preliminary talks on a new collective bargaining agreement. You said it's he wants the highest quality and he's saying preseason games, don't meet that level. He's right about that. They've talked about reducing the preseason schedule and exchange for expanding the regular season to maybe eighteen games but players, don't like that. Because they think safety, that's you know, they'd have to have additional money for playing a longer regular season. So I wouldn't be stunned, if they do come up with some kind of agreement where they add it least another regular season game. But then it does go to you got to pay everybody more because of the intensity of the game and this isn't a regular season what that would mean think of the injury. Amount of injuries that would possibly go up possibly go up. And then, of course, there's always conversations about rule changes and overtime rule changes and all of that. And then building new stadiums, like the bills trying to force them to replace an old stadium. That was built in nineteen seventy three they're still conducting these ability study up there. You know old it is in buffalo. They with us. Hi, this is Paul otherwise known.

warriors Nike NBA Leonard Oakland raptors San Francisco Bruins California Sports Illustrated Craig Berube Kevin Durant DeMarcus cousins fraud Steph curry Boston powerlifting football John
"california district court" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

14:10 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Justice. This is the program that takes you behind the scenes with those who make the laws and those who protect your rights through the rule of law. Your host is attorney Thomas Girardi Girardi is the founding partner of the law firm of Girardi and keys known passionate litigation corporate giants on behalf of aggrieved individuals. He is a member of the California state bar trial lawyer hall of fame, and is widely regarded by his peers as one of the nation's top trial lawyers. Tom is a champion of Justice for the little guy each week. We air this informative and entertaining our bringing clarity to the headline generating legal challenges of the day. We're gonna talk about some very interesting legal challenges that we face we have as our guests attorney, Robert Baker and attorney Phil Baker Robert Baker is a partner at the law firm of Baker keener, and narrow LLP a civil trial firm with extensive experience in all aspects of case management involving business. And real estate litigation construction employment insurance, personal injury, products, liability and professional malpractice. The roots of the law firm HALE back to the early seventies. Where principles Robert Baker, Carl keener and John Nahra practice together at a Los Angeles based firm synergies of ethics values and personal chemistry between these colleagues led to the formation of be an N in late nineteen Eighty-six since its beginning. The firm has quickly become nationally recognized as an outstanding trial law firm and built a reputation as two nations as courtroom attorneys on behalf of their clients interests. But Baker received his bachelor of science from the university of southern California and his juris doctorate from loyal the law school at Los Angeles. He was a law clerk to Justice Roy L Herndon in the California district court of appeal. Mr Baker is the past national president of American board of trial advocates of Voda a member of the Los Angeles County and American Bar Association state bar of California association of southern California defense counsel, a fellow of the international academy of trial lawyers. The international society of barristers, the American college of trial, lawyers, Mr Baker has been selected to southern California super lawyers every year since since two thousand four Philip Baker is also a partner at Baker keener. Mr Baker is admitted to the bar in California United States district court central eastern northern and southern districts of California United States district court of Arizona. United States district court of Colorado United States courts of appeal ninth circuit Phil Baker received his bachelor of science from Georgetown University and his juris doctorate from the university of. Southern California school of law. He was a law clerk to dick run to risen United States district. Judge in the central district of California. Mr Baker is a member of the state bar of California, a past president of the association of southern California defense counsel and associate member of the American board of trial advocates a former vice president of the Los Angeles chapter of the American board of trial advocates and was Commissioner of the department of transportation city of Los Angeles from nineteen ninety eight through two thousand one this Baker has been named a southern California super lawyer from two thousand four through the presence. So Tom we have before us today. The Baker boys. We do Dino. Hi, everybody. Hey, thanks for joining. This is very nice of you. Okay. Dave, dino. Here's what we did. We went to the bullpen. Yes. We wanted to left-handers and income the bakers and matter of fact, I just saw the LA times they were going to say about the show, and the indicated this show will prove that trial lawyers are born and not made because Phil Baker is a son a Robert Baker. And for many people have said for years about baker's the best cross examiner without a doubt. That's no kidding. And clearly one of the top two or three best trial lawyers in the state of some people are you, and I think actively so fill is better than Bob. And that's and that's the situation. But anyway, enough of that, welcome. Phil, welcome, Bob. Nice to have you with us to be here. We wonder talk a little bit about how important the the jury system is. You know what I mean? And how it's wonderful and sometimes get it rolling. Maybe. So. I've looked at cases that I've tried. Cases, I've lost. And I've said to myself when they come in against me. I never thought they did it, right? But in about twenty four hours as you think it through you say, man, he's people get it. Right. Most of the time, but Baker, and I were to show you about the jury system, we did a thing at Loyola Law School. It was a trial and was just a two and a half hour trial in front of a real jury, Los Angeles. Superior court jury on the other side, we had six judges five appellate justices and one judge of the spear your court, and we tried the case. Then the jury went up to deliberate, and we told him we were going to eavesdrop on their deliberations. The judges had to write down their decision at the end of the case, and the judges weren't permitted to talk each other. This is just their decision. So then we listen to the jury go back and forth. Jury came in with its verdict. The judges then gave their individual verdicts five out of the six said, you know, had I listened to those jurors back and forth before I made my decision. It would have been different decision. False bank. Absolutely true. Now, then and here these these guys are five five guys five minute. One women when woman. They've they've studied love their lives. Been a judge for many many years and loon behold when it came down to deciding the facts that common ordinary people with no legal background did a much better job than these Justice. Did in light of the way that they looked at it pretty cool. It was pretty it was it was an interesting, and it was an experience that opened the eyes of the judges more Thomas and Phil believed in the jury system since the beginning of recorded time, but it opened the eyes of the justices as to what dialogue between each other and the common purpose of rendering a true and fair and equitable result is and so it was it was very very enlightening to them into the law students at Loyola Law School, Phil. Would you rather? Try your case in front of a jury or in front of a judge. I think all three of us take a jury. I think you you get to see the. The other side, and you get to trust the instincts of twelve people, and every occasion whether won or lost. You understood how the jury made the decision and why they made the decision. Dave. We were we were wondering I was wondering. Okay. What what is the most appealing thing? Jurors now. Oh, you're a bunch of first of all you have a lot of people run implode. You're down there. Asking for a lot of money for pain and suffering. This poor guy has been out of work for six months. And he's on the jury. How do you how do you handle that? And here's what we did. We decided to have an interview with the foreperson of the jurors on the twenty five largest verdicts in California last year. Matter of fact, we hired investigator to do it. This guy is the real deal is former CIA guy, and he would then get the foreperson. And then ask him a few questions or ask her a few questions about why did you come to this conclusion, and these are the twenty five largest verdicts that took place last year in different areas. There were a couple personal injury cases. There were some cases, product liability cases, intellectual property cases, where they one guy stole the actual property from somebody else an antitrust case that cetera. And the idea was we wanted a gut reaction of that four person. We didn't want it twenty minute dissertation of the things that he considered. But what was the gut reaction that took place in one case, the gut reaction was that plaintiff's lawyer did a superb job in one case said they're just twenty two. We didn't get the last three in one case the four person said boy that lady was really badly hurt. No kid. In all of the other cases, the jurors the reason they came in with the amount was because of the terrible conduct of the other side really be in a product that they put out there that they had not. Coming after coming after comment. Boy, can you imagine them doing that? Can you imagine them selling that product? Can you imagine putting that onto the market? Could you imagine them taking that young guys idea and making all this money out of it? Which was very interesting to me. I think I know something about jury trial just like the bakes. But the fact of the matter is the focus I think therefore in these cases has to change somewhat. Instead of all my goodness. My knee hurts to look at how terrible. This guy was to be driving at eighty miles an hour putting everybody in jeopardy at cetera. What do you think of that? No. That's very true. I think that yours get get irritated about irrational. And and conduct and thoughtless conduct. Either manufacturer person is to is definitely to be punished and least compensated the victim of that thoughtless conduct. I recently tried a securities fraud case in the fraud that was perpetrated on this gentleman was. Done with premeditation and the jury found awarded a substantial punitive damage award. Because of the fact that these people shouldn't have been perpetrating a security fraud on anybody. So I think it is more about the conduct of the defence. You're listening to champions of Justice with Tom Girardi and our guest today attorneys, Robert Baker and Phil Baker. We're talking about the jury system fill. I think from our perspective on occasion. Where usually representing the guys the blackhead. Terrible miserable rotten spin the people who have been wrongly accused. But I think I'll give you a story. I had last year. I had a client who is being accused of embezzling couple million dollars. No big deal. And they were saying all these bad things about him. But he was actually pretty nice guy. So when you like to have dinner with watch a football game with them. So at the. End of the punitive at already getting hit the first time I decided to come up with this great quote from to kill a Mockingbird. Mighty till scout. She says, you know, you're too young understand this. But sometimes the whiskey bottle in the hand of one man is worse in the bible in the hand of your father. And I was trying to convey that. Okay. You may have a couple of wars. But he's really not that bad. I think that's a pretty good quote. I got hammered. The jury does come in don't they in this social environment? Don't they come in with a bit of a bias against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney if they feel like the plaintiff is going to go for a large award. You know, they've got to play a little differently now at one time, I think earlier in my career, I thought it was very important to give the jury guideline now is I've gotten older I pretty much entrust that to them on certain areas. Now, then the guy can't work anymore. We have that Stowe case for exam dodger guy that got beat up at Dodger Stadium. Well, in terms of the medical expense in the future medical. I wanna talk to jurors about that. With respect, however to money that would compensate this family that this guy now has real only communication is somehow putting some in the air to them and so forth. You know, lean that to a jury they come up with a pretty good decision. The other thing is you don't turn them off by saying some big number on the one hand on the other hand, you don't want to put a number that it's too low. Then they think gee whiz thing is very important and they're doing it is really pretty good. They're very smart..

Robert Baker Phil Baker Robert Baker Los Angeles California Tom Girardi Thomas Girardi Girardi Baker keener law clerk attorney California United States distr Loyola Law School university of southern Califor Southern California school of United States Los Angeles County international academy of trial Dave
"california district court" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

News 96.5 WDBO

02:07 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on News 96.5 WDBO

"Traffic hours. From ABC news. I'm Michelle Franzen. President Trump is shaking up his immigration policy. The president says he plans to send more troops to the border and Friday said he's considering centering plan to release migrants to sink Tuaregs cities. Even the homeland security advisers are dismissing his idea ABC's tarot poem areas outside the White House President telling reporters that he may follow through on a fringe proposal to bus detained undocumented migrants and release them into so called sanctuary cities. Where local authorities refused to cooperate with immigration officials. The plan was brought up twice by the Trump administration. But a White House spokesperson dismissed the proposal saying, quote, this was just a suggestion that was floated and rejected which ended any further discussion the Trump administration's policy to send asylum seekers back to Mexico, while their immigration cases are heard got a reprieve Friday, the ninth US circuit court of appeals blocked, the California district court's preliminary injunction that until more arguments are heard this week. In the lower court, just outside Minneapolis. Police. Have a suspect in custody after a child was seriously injured police say either thrown or pushed over a third floor railing at the mall of America. Twenty four year old manual this. Sean Rhonda arrested accused of throwing or pushing a five-year-old from the third floor of the mall of America Friday, the boy landing two stories below the child rushed to the hospital with life threatening injuries. Police say Iran shove, the little boy over the railing before taking off ABC's area. Russia reporting former prep school administrator, Mark Redel pleaded guilty Friday to secretly taking SAT ACT test for students. Now ABC news has learned prosecutors in Boston have also sent target letters to some of the adult children of the parents that are facing charges in the case and severe storms in the forecast for parts of the south today, including the possibility of tornadoes. You're listening to ABC news. There's nothing like meeting face to face. And there's no. Like zoom to make that happen zoom..

ABC news President Trump Trump administration America ABC White House Michelle Franzen president President Sean Rhonda Minneapolis California US Iran Mark Redel Russia administrator Mexico Boston
"california district court" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

03:37 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Jim rogue and we're waiting for that. And there are eight California district court seats for which there is no nominee. What is going on at the White House? Well, we're honoring the blue slips with district court judges you got to democratic senators. I think we've got to deal in the making for fourteen district court judges in California that will be skewed it here soon. And Pat, the White House counsel as doing a very good job of sending down whether democratic colleagues trying to find common ground to process these judges. Well, tell me about that deal. People don't understand I've tried to explain to them that the Senate maintains its prerogative for home say judges. But that doesn't mean that California has to be condemned to liberals for the rest. Of their lives. What is that negotiation? Like in those judges, fourteen California judges what kind of a list does that look like, well, this is everything you do at home with your family and your church. He sat down you try to swap things out. So pass done a good job on the fourteen. They will be coming here soon there in the Knicks already quite frankly, then you've got eight more than we're looking for people that we can find common ground with they'll get a few. We'll get most dislike like a two three two one ill. And what happens if there's a democratic president, it will work the the opposite way. Tim Scott are forced still around in the Senate Democratic president. Well, they gotta sit down with us about district court judges. So the blue slip process is going to be honored for district court judges because you said it best you're talking about your home state here, and I have no objection except they do nationwide injunctions now like they fall off of. Completely different issue. And we've got to address that we've got make sure that it district court judge, and you name the city name to state cannot lot whole country. Now, San Francisco definition. Well, what I'm telling them telling liberals what about Greenville, South Carolina. Yeah. So the point is at this is their off the rails when it comes to tissue district court authority, but thirty court thirty circuit court judges nominated under Grassley tenure Chuck Grassley did a great job Guinea judges through. We've had two hearings already forty six out in the first day probably eight to ten circuit court vacancies can be filled in twenty nineteen. I'm gonna try to get as many as ninety five of the district court openings as I can and twenty nineteen there. There are twelve circuit court vacancies right now in one more on the night, circle to hope you're pushing for Rogin or Guilford on that we had to hearing. So the actual list actual process. Attock amazed that eight to ten. Yeah. I love gym broken out. You know, I'll sit down with the White House and. You know, my buddy, let me let me tell you a little bit about when you negotiate with Dianne Feinstein is it in good faith on these district court judges because I understand she gets a few and Senator Harris gets a few except she's not playing, but Diane Feinstein's, a senior member on judiciary is she actually just slow rolling you. Or is she doing a deal we've got fourteen that that we're done? So here's the way it goes. And they can slow roll us, but we can flow role. Then. So at the end of the day, there's a lot of states with two Republican senators, so if Camilla Harris for guys to be president should face the same problem, and I've told her that listen, you know, you'll have some input you'll get a few picks. But that's just the way the system works. If you get to be president, you'll want it to work this way and blue slips though for circuit nominees are dead dead dead..

president California Knicks Diane Feinstein White House Senate Senator Harris Jim rogue Attock Chuck Grassley Dianne Feinstein San Francisco Greenville Pat Tim Scott South Carolina Rogin Guinea Guilford
"california district court" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

11:55 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

"To welcome back. Great friend of the show, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. One of our favorite guests second-best interview in America after the president no matter of fact, he's going to be reelected easily in twenty twenty from South Carolina. And he is now the powerful new chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, Senator Graham, welcome back to have you. What thank you send money. There's no easy about this. Okay. Sam what's the website? I don't know, you don't know. Grandson money. Everybody knows that that we are friendly. So this is a tough interview. I wanna know it's been two months since the new congress came in not one judicial confirmation and the new congress why not. Well, we're reported forty six out of the judiciary committee the first week the most since nineteen Eighty-one we'll be going to Miller, I think from California when we get back and judicial train is running in the committee and never soon hit the floor. Now, there were exactly to nomination hearings in the entire month of February. So conservatives like me of you this other than military spending is the most important thing that President Bush does can you not get your committee to meet like at least weekly to do nominations? We've got forty six people out in one day. So we gotta get those people processed we had we've had hearings for the ninth circuit we've had hearings for the second circuit. And we've got a a real cute. Trust me on this. We will get our judges to the floor there. Ninety five district court openings twenty five of them come from states. For those of the senators are Democrats, and we have about eight to ten circuit court nominations to be processed in twenty nineteen and we will hit our goal as much as possible the ninth circuit nominees. There are three of them in the fourth one auto becoming. We'll talk about that. In a moment. I it is urgent that we get them on there before the barrier. Wall issue comes up from the district court, and that would seem to me to be an argument for expediting their hearing and their vote has anyone talked about that in the GOP conference? Yeah. Well, mitch's Miller is next. He comes up when we get back. Then I've got two more. The lighthouse missed the day to send them that time to send them days. So we'll hold him Oprah week. But yeah, we will get them on the floor. He's got to work with Schumer. We're thinking about changing the rules. So that the thirty hour period to debate a judge's reduced two hours because they're blocking everything and Mitch is working on it as we speak your buddy right blind from Missouri has proposed a role that would maintain that thirty hours of debate for circuit court judges have you taken him aside and told them that's a crazy rule. That's got to be two hours to well. The point is that we had this rule by green when they filibuster Bush's judges twenty thirteen so I'm sorry when right for hairy changed the rules by circuit for circuit courts. Does simple-majority plan right now is is a two hours. For the administrative side that the judicial calendar niche feels like is going to move at a pace that we can all live with. But you know, mitch's whatever you want to say about Mitch McConnell. He's done a hell of a job when it comes to processing judges. Oh, I think he is saved the constitution. I think Senator Grassley, and you and the members of the judiciary committee, save the constitution. But they took a vacation. And I know you got forty six out that is an all time record. But twice a month. That's not how we work in radio. Senator. We're here every day. I want you guys to be there every day doing judges. Okay. Anything else? Yeah. Let me continue nominees. This one is not actually on you. But you've got gotta roll the White House has not nominated one ninth Circuit Judge. It might be Jim rogue, and it might be Andy Guilford your old buddy Jim rogue, and we're waiting for that. And there are eight California district court seats for which there is no nominee. What is going on at the White House? Well, we're honoring good blue slips with district court judges you got to democratic senators. I think we've got to deal in the making for fourteen district court judges in California that will be here soon. And Pat, the White House counsel as doing a very good job of sending down with our democratic colleagues trying to find common ground or process these judges. Well, tell me about that deal. People don't understand I've tried to explain to them that the Senate maintains its prerogative for home say judges. But that doesn't mean that California has to be condemned to liberals for the rest of their life. Lives. What is that negotiation? Like in those judges, fourteen California judges what kind of a list does that look like, well, everything you do at home with your family, and your church you sit down and you try to swap things out so past done a good job on the fourteen. They will be coming here soon. They're in the mix already, quite frankly, then you've got eight more than we're looking for people that we can find common ground with they'll get a few. We'll get most like a two three two one ill. And what happens if there's a democratic president, it will work the the opposite way. Tim Scott naira for still around in the Senate Democratic president. Well, if they gotta sit down with us about district court judges. So the blue slip process is going to be honored for district court judges because you said it best you're talking about your home state here have Jackson, except they do nationwide injunctions now like they fall off of a Cadillac completely. Be different issue. And we've got to address that we've gotta make sure that it district court judge, and you name the city you name the state cannot like whole country, death San Francisco. Well, what I'm telling I'm telling. Liberals what about Greenville, South Carolina? So the point is that this is their off the rails. When it comes to your district court authority, but thirty court thirty circuit court judges nominated under Grassley tenure Chuck Grassley did a great job Guinea judges through we've had two hearings already forty six out in the first day, probably eight to ten circuit court vacancies can be filled in twenty nineteen. I'm gonna try to get as many as ninety five of that district court openings as I can in twenty nineteen good. There are twelve circuit court vacancies right now in one more on the ninth circuit. I hope you're pushing for Rogin or Guilford on that we've had to hearing. So the actual list actual process out of Kamei's about eight to ten. Yeah. I love gym broken out. You know, I'll sit down with the White House. And you know, that's my buddy. Let me let me tell you a little bit about when you negotiate with Dianne Feinstein is it in good faith on these district court judges because I understand she gets a few and Senator Harris gets a few except she's not playing, but Diane Feinstein's, a senior member on judiciary. Is she actually just slow rolling you? Or is she doing a deal we've got fourteen that that were done? So here's the way it goes. And they can slow roll us, but we can flow roll them. So at the end of the day, there's a lot of states with two Republican senators, so if Camilla Harris ever got to be president should face the same problem. And I've told her that I said, listen, you know, you'll have some input you'll get a few picks. But that's just the way the system works. If you get to be president, you'll want it to work this way and blue slips though for circuit nominees are dead dead dead. They've always been dead of the last nineteen chairman. Only to have really honored the blue slip one during the civil rights movement, which was way for southern senators to block judicial appointments and Lahey for a period of time honored the blue slips when Bush was president and a little bit. When Obama was president it becomes a Fito. So here's what I told my democratic friends you change the rules, not knee to require majority vote for circuit courts. So now, you're complaining about the fact that we won't allow two senators to take over the entire process. So the blue slip process for circuit court. Judges are not going to be allowed to become ITO. I'm telling you Lindsey Graham if you get this broken, and you do a hearing a week on judges. They're gonna put it statue up at USC pack already got reelection as a lockdown, but you get the judges moving even faster you'd be through the floor. I mean, the committee we control that. I mean, we got good members of the committee. I've got the most awesome judiciary committee. Maybe in the history of the committee. Just all star. Conservative. But niches got gotta deal with humor. And you know, when we get him out of committee and mitch's one hell of a job. I think we'll have more judges on the court than any time in modern history. When this is all you're going to have to invoke the Reid rule that change the debate limits when is that going to happen? I've been waiting for that to happen to and that hasn't well, we need fifty votes. I'm ready to vote because you gotta realize you gotta accept this on your watch. When it comes to these nominations. There's like three hundred people in the Bush in the Obama, excuse me, the Trump administration. I'm getting ahead of myself. Trump administration just sitting for about a year, and these people giving up their lives to serve the government. And that's where the problem is a lot of senior positions in the Trump administration unveiled because we cannot process the nominee a bunch of embassador ships. And that's what's pushing the rules change in Roy's done a good job. But in this package faster, please, you know, Kelly Simpson is a good friend of mine, and and the navy needs a general counsel, and he never got out. So this is a you know, we we did forty six judges in one day. They're all holdovers. From the last congress, and that was a hell of a fight. But I said, listen all these people had hearing some have had been on the floor waiting. So we're going to get them through and we did. And so now, they're ready to go the floor. But there are a lot of people like friends, you just named that have turned their lives upside down to surf the government. They're stuck in purgatory. And and this is what the rules change is all about, you know, I know the forty six. Nominees. It's always with me though. What have you done for me lately? And that's like next week. Let me switch subjects now. Like my family. Let me switch subject. The Roman Catholic church is engaged in a massive. I'm a Roman Catholic. I'm a devout Catholic. They are engaged in a massive cover-up in many states over misdeeds done by their clergy. Over decades, the democratic attorney general of Pennsylvania. Josh Shapiro has actually led the way here, and I've talked about this. I think if your committee held hearings on this. It would greatly advanced the cause of Justice for these victims any plan nine and thought about it until you said something. Yeah. The southern Baptist convention is going through this or lot of abuses, not reported overtime. Where people go from one church to the next even though is more decentralized at the southern Baptist system is is still a problem. And yeah, maybe yeah. I hadn't thought about it until you just mentioned it. But what kind of system is it that really doesn't report because a lot of these people just moved from parish to parish church to church. If you got a hearing going, it would be I think like the coffer hearings. I think everybody would show up, and you know, that's well, that's why I call in to the radio show. I learned something right now, here's one you have said you're going to have a hearing with Mr. mccay. I am hoping that when you pull in Mr. Komi, Mr. Mr. struck MS page, the general counsel that you Lindsey Graham, you're smart chairman, and you're pretty good at your questions. But some of your colleagues are not so good. I'm hoping you will appoint one season prosecutor to conduct all the questionings except the chairman's introductory remarks..

President Bush Senator Lindsey Graham president Mitch McConnell California chairman judiciary committee Senator Grassley South Carolina congress Senator White House Senate Judiciary committee Senator Harris Miller Obama general counsel America Sam Senate
"california district court" Discussed on WTVN

WTVN

12:22 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on WTVN

"A huge institutional problem in this country several but one in particular. It actually was written about in my first book men in black. The supreme court is destroying America. And I would restate that byline. Now, the federal judiciary is destroying America. Everything's up for grabs. Now. Everything's have progress when it's in front of a single federal district judge. There around nine hundred give or take federal district judges in this country. Do you know how they're selected? They're not selected like circuit court judges. They're not selected like supreme court justices. It's much more political. I can tell you as somebody who was involved in the process and observe the process during the Reagan administration. One of the positions. I held in. The Reagan administration was associate director, President Trump personnel and one of the areas, I was responsible for was traditional selection. Now, you know, why at least in part Reagan opponents, so many solid people throughout the federal judiciary? Now, I didn't have control over it. I was involved in it for a few years. But the president of the United States Reagan much like our current president. Donald Trump was hell bent on putting people on the federal bench who would honor the constitution. Want to be a politician? Run for office. You want to be a left wing professor get tenure at some college or university. You want to be an activist then join some organization and take to the streets. But if you want to be a federal judge that is a solemn commitment. To our constitution, and our institutional order separation of powers and so forth. President Reagan like President Trump was committed to this. But just so, you know, how district court judges are selected. There's a compromise. It takes place. Let me explain what I mean. And this has been the tradition over many many many decades. There's bargaining that takes place over district court judges because there's many of them. So let's say there's three vacancies. In the state of California. At least when I observe this. The Democrats senators would say, you know, I'm going to put a hold on the Reagan nominees. We might even filibuster them unless we can reach a compromise. And typically, the compromise was okay. We get to you. Give us one as long as a one isn't so crazy that we can't accept it. That's fights important when you read or you here. That's a Reagan appointed judge and yet look at that Reagan opponent judger for that matter a Bush appointed judge or another Bush opponent judge or even a Trump appointed jet you go. Wow. Even Trump appointed judge did XYZ fine. Who is that judge and who recommended that judge? Maybe that was one of the compromise. Judges. When it comes to the appellate courts. At least when I was at the White House. No such compromise. I don't know if either of the bushes, hopefully, not caved on that. I don't think President Trump has in any respect. So that kind of horse trading. Doesn't go on at the circuit court level. And it certainly doesn't go on at the supreme court. So you have these federal district judges? Several of them in the major metropolitan areas, obviously, not so many in rural areas, and you've got these organizations that are national organizations with individuals they represent or choose to represent. In districts in district court jurisdictions. Who are known to be more liberal more activist then another parts of the country. And the judges those who are social activist litigators. Look at the list of judges. And even though they're typically randomly picked. They know. They know they didn't San Francisco. More of the district court judges in that city in that metropolitan area are of the Obama ilk than they are of the Trump milk or even the Bush bushel. Or they might be one of the compromise with Barbara Boxer in the past or Feinstein in the past. So they form shop. They formed shop in San Francisco they formed shop in Seattle. They formed shop in Baltimore Maryland. You understand? That's what they do. Now, you might say well don't conservatives do that. The problem is conservatives don't normally go to court to expand government. They just don't we just don't. Court as a last resort. We believe in the elected bodies. So when these judges who have lifetime appointments, the vast majority of them, you've never heard of some of them come out of these these sort of blue chip law firms. Some of them come out of activism, typically on the left. Some of them are well known professors typically on the left, although some who are originalists. They got lifetime appointments. And when these district court judges. Get a case. That can infect the entirety of the nation. Some nine hundred of these judges. You can see. That the the percentages against a conservative slash Republican president as much worse and against a democrat slash liberal president. Because of this forum shopping by the left. And I bring this up because we've had a series of cases. Now, we've talked about this at length in the past. Where we have eight district court judge in a city in acord house where there's several district court judges issuing an injunction nationwide. And the greatest associate Justice Clarence Thomas has complained about this. He's complain about it because it's it's not wholly unique. But the spread of it is wholly unique. You know, every now, and then a judge would do that. And it was frowned upon. Now, they do it willy nilly because Trump is the president. Because Trump is the president. We don't have a threat in this country from an outside Trump presidency. Muscling its way through separation of powers. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. He's not trying to expand the power of the presidency. He's trying to legitimately use the powers. He's not legislating from the Oval Office. Despite the phony originalists who say he would be if he triggers the national emergencies act. He's trying to follow the rules. But these judges are disaster. A disaster. This is from our buddies at right scoop. And now the injunction on Trump's ObamaCare rule is nationwide. You're already know that the other day a judge in California. Blocked at Trump rule that allowed employers with religious or moral objections to opt out of Obamacare's contraception coverage that affected thirteen states. So a judge. Countermanded the president of the United States the head of the executive branch who's overseeing ObamaCare in the infinite regulations involved in one of the things the president did is he said, you know, this regulation that was put in place by the Obama administration. I'm yanking it in a federal judge a district court judge in Pennsylvania said, oh, no. You're not. I don't agree with you. A Pennsylvania district court judge issued a nationwide injunction Monday afternoon Justice, the new policy was slated to take effect. The ruling came less than twenty four hours after a California district court issued a more limited stay in thirteen democratic states and the district Columbia while challenges are being argued. The rulings in rapid succession. Both by judges appointed by Barack Obama form shopping. And so when the chiefs should I say, we don't have Obama judges. He was lying through his teeth. Are the latest legal twists in a dispute over an expansion of health benefits for women out of the Affordable Care Act that is wound through the courts for years. It's not an expansion of health benefits. It's contraceptives. Contraceptives that teenagers go into drugstores and by. For pennies almost. The dispute centers on the issue of religious liberty. Specifically the extent to which the government should carve out exceptions for churches, religious groups and even nonreligious employers at object to birth control coverage based on their beliefs now, I know there's a part of the constitution in the first amendment that protects religious liberty. I know nothing in the constitution. That protects while not even protects that compels the taxpayer through the federal government to pay for contraceptives, nothing. I mean, let me ask you a question, isn't it more necessary for the sustenance of a human being to have food and contraceptives? Contraceptives have nothing to do with sustenance with survival. So. Wouldn't they argue then that you have an absolute right to a meal. If you have an absolute right to contraceptives. Anyway, let's go on. The Obama administration had narrow exceptions and a system of accommodations a work around to religious objections, which a third party insurer would cover birth control. Even if the employer did not keep in mind. It wasn't really that long ago prior to the Obama administration where we had rules in place by congress that said not a penny will be spent by the federal government to subsidize abortions. It's called the Henry Hyde amendment the Hyde amendment you familiar with this Obama turned it on his head. Now, we have judges saying, no, no, no, no, you will pay for contraceptives. Even if you're a church that doesn't believe in it. A religious group that doesn't believe in it. An employer who doesn't believe in. It. You shall pay for it? President Trump widen the circumstances under which employers could claim exemptions in an effort to accommodate social conservative. No. In an effort to comply with the first amendment. The first amendment. And as they point out right scoop. Obama should have never forced employers or anyone else to pay for contraception. Especially those that could cause abortions. We're funding Planned Parenthood. That's their main activity. Abortions. Now, they're saying that even if you have a religious objection to killing a baby in the womb. You shall pay for it? This is called progress. You see? I'll be right back..

President Trump president President Reagan Obama supreme court Reagan administration Obama administration Trump California United States Bush professor federal government America San Francisco White House Justice Clarence Thomas Barbara Boxer
"california district court" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

WCBM 680 AM

12:22 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on WCBM 680 AM

"A huge institutional problem in this country several but one in particular. It actually was written about in my first book men in black how the supreme court is destroying America. And I would restate that byline. Now, have the federal judiciary is destroying America. Everything's up for grabs. Now. Everything's up for grabs when it's in front of a single federal district judge. There around nine hundred give or take federal district judges in this country. You know, how they're selected. They're not selected like circuit court judges. They're not selected like supreme court justices. It's much more political. I can tell you as somebody who was involved in the process and observe the process during the Reagan administration. One of the positions. I held in. The Reagan administration was associate director, President Trump personnel and one of the areas, I was responsible for was traditional selection. Now, you know, why at least in part Reagan opponents, so many solid people throughout the federal judiciary? Now, I didn't have control over it. And I was involved in it for a few years. But the president of the United States Reagan much like our current president. Donald Trump was hell bent on putting people on the federal bench who would honor the constitution. I wanna be a politician. Run for office. You want to be a left wing. Professor get tenure at some college university. You want to be an activist then join some organization and take to the streets. But if you want to be federal judge that is a solemn commitment. To our constitution, and our institutional order separation of powers and so forth. President Reagan like President Trump was committed to this. But just so, you know, how district court judges are selected. There's a compromise. It takes place. Let me explain what I mean. And this has been the tradition over many many many decades. There's bargaining that takes place over district court judges because there's many of them. So let's say there's three vacancies in the state of California. At least when I observe this. The democratic senators would say, you know, I'm gonna put a hold on the Reagan nominees. We might even filibuster them unless we can reach a compromise. And typically, the compromise was okay. We get to you. Give us one as long as a one isn't so crazy that we can't accept it. That's why it's important when you read or you hear that's say Reagan appointed judge and yet look at that. Reagan appointed judger for that matter. Bush appointed judge or another Bush opponent judge or even a Trump appointed jet you go. Wow. Even a Trump appointed judge did XYZ fine. Who is that judge and who recommended that judge? Maybe that was one of the compromise. Judges. When it comes to the appellate courts. At least when I was at the White House. No such compromise. I don't know if either of the bushes, hopefully, not caved on that. I don't think President Trump has in any respect. So that kind of horse trading. Doesn't go on at the circuit court level. And it certainly doesn't go on at the supreme court level. So you have these federal district judges? Several of them in the major metropolitan areas, obviously, not so many enroll areas, and you've got these organizations that are national organizations with individuals they represent or choose to represent. In districts in district court jurisdictions. Who are known to be more liberal more activist then another parts of the country. And the judges those who are social activist litigators. Look at the list of judges. And even though they're typically randomly picked. They know. They know that in San Francisco more of the district court judges in that city in that metropolitan area are of the Obama ilk. Then they are of the Trump milk or even the Bush. Doc, or they might be one of the compromise. But Barbara Boxer in the past or Feinstein in the past. So they forum shop. They formed shop in San Francisco they formed shop in Seattle. They formed shop in Baltimore, Maryland, you understand. That's what they do. Now, you might say well don't conservatives do that. The problem is conservatives don't normally go to court to expand government. They just don't we just don't. Court as a last resort. We believe in the elective bodies. So when these judges who have lifetime appointments, the vast majority of them, you've never heard of some of them come out of these these sort of blue chip law firms. Some of them come out of activism, typically on the left. Some of them are well known professors typically on the left, although some who are originalists. They get lifetime appointments. And when these district court judges. Get a case. That can infect the entirety of the nation. Some nine hundred of these judges. You can see. That the the percentages against a conservative slash Republican president as much worse and against a democrat slash liberal president. Because of this form shopping by the left. And I bring this up because we've had a series of cases. Now, we've talked about this at length in the past. Where we have a district court judge in a city in a courthouse where there's several district court judges issuing an injunction nationwide. And the greatest associate Justice Clarence Thomas has complained about this. He's complained about it because it's it's not wholly unique. But the spread of it is wholly unique. You know, every now, and then a judge would do that. And it was frowned upon. Now, they do it willy nilly because Trump is the president. Because Trump is the president. We don't have a threat in this country from an outside Trump presidency. Muscling its way through separation of powers. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. He's not trying to expand the power of the presidency. He's trying to legitimately use the powers. He's not legislating from the Oval Office. Despite the phony originalists who say he would be if he triggers the national emergencies act. He's trying to follow the rules. But these judges are disaster. A disaster. This is from our buddies at right scoop. And now the injunction on Trump's ObamaCare rule is nationwide. You already know that the other day, a judge in California. Blocked at Trump rule that allowed employers with religious or moral objections to opt out of Obamacare's contraception coverage that affected thirteen states. So a judge. Countermanded the president of the United States, the head of the executive branch who's overseeing ObamaCare, and the infinite regulations involved in one of the things the president did is he said, you know, this regulation that was put in place by the Obama administration on yanking it in a federal judge a district court judge of Pennsylvania said, oh, no. You're not. I don't agree with you. A Pennsylvania district court judge issued a nationwide injunction Monday afternoon, just as the new policy was slated to take effect. The ruling came less than twenty four hours after a California district court issued a more limited stay in thirteen democratic states and the district of Columbia while challenges are being argued. The rulings in rapid succession. Both by judges appointed by Barack Obama forum shopping. And so when the chief chefs to say, we don't have Obama judges he was lying through his teeth. Are the latest legal twists in a dispute over an expansion of health benefits for women out of the Affordable Care Act that is wound through the courts for years. It's not an expansion of health benefits. It's contraceptives. Contraceptives that teenagers go into drugstores and by. For pennies almost. The dispute centers on the issue of religious liberty. Specifically the extent to which the government should carve out exceptions for churches, religious groups and even non religious employers object to birth control coverage based on their beliefs now, I know there's a part of the constitution in the first amendment that protects religious liberty. I know nothing in the constitution. That protects. Well, not even protects that compels the taxpayer through the federal government to pay for contraceptives, nothing. I mean, let me ask you a question, isn't it more necessary for the sustenance of the human being to have food and contraceptives? Contraceptives have nothing to do with sustenance with survival. So. Wouldn't they argue then that you have an absolute right to a meal. If you have an absolute right to contraceptives. Anyway, let's go on. The Obama administration had narrow exceptions and system of accommodations a work around to religious objections, which a third party insurer would cover birth control. Even if the employer did not keep in mind. It wasn't really that long ago prior to the Obama administration where we had rules in place by congress that said not a penny will be spent by the federal government to subsidize abortions. It's called the Henry Hyde amendment the Hyde amendment you familiar with this Obama turned it on his head. Now, we've judges saying, no, no, no, no, you will pay for contraceptives. Even if you're a church that doesn't believe in it. A religious group that doesn't believe in it. An employer who doesn't believe in. It. You shall pay for it? President Trump wideness circumstances under which employers could claim exemptions in an effort to accommodate social conservative. No. In an effort to comply with the first amendment. The first amendment. And as they point at right scoop. Obama should have never forced employers or anyone else to pay for contraception. Specially those that could cause abortions. We're funding Planned Parenthood. That's their main activity. Abortions. But now they're saying that even if you have a religious objection to killing a baby in the womb. You shall pay for it? This is called progress. You see? I'll be right back..

President Trump president President Reagan Obama Reagan administration Obama administration Trump California Trump wideness Bush United States America Professor federal government San Francisco White House Justice Clarence Thomas Barbara Boxer
"california district court" Discussed on KTOK

KTOK

04:21 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on KTOK

"These judges are disaster. A disaster. This is from our buddies at right scoop. And now the injunction on Trump's ObamaCare rule is nationwide. You're already know that the other day a judge in California. Blocked at Trump rule that allowed employers with religious or moral objections to opt out of Obamacare's contraception coverage that affected thirteen states. So a judge. Countermanded the president of the United States, the head of the executive branch who's overseeing ObamaCare, and the infinite regulations involved in one of the things the president did is he said, you know, this regulation that was put in place by the Obama administration. I'm yanking it in a federal judge a district court judge in Pennsylvania said no, you're not. I don't agree with you. A Pennsylvania district court judge issued a nationwide injunction Monday afternoon, just as the new policy was slated to take effect. The ruling came less than twenty four hours after a California district court issued a more limited stay in thirteen democratic states and the district of Columbia while challenges are being argued. The Rollings in rapid succession. Both by judges appointed by Barack Obama form shop. And so when the chiefs should have said, we don't have Obama judges. He was lying through his teeth. Are the latest legal twists in dispute over an expansion of health benefits for women out of the Affordable Care Act that is wound through the courts for years. It's not an expansion of health benefits. It's contraceptives. Contraceptives that teenagers go into drugstores and by. For pennies almost. The dispute centers on the issue of religious liberty. Specifically the extent to which the government should carve out exceptions for churches, religious groups, and even non religious employers that object to birth control coverage based on their beliefs now, I know there's a part of the constitution in the first amendment protects religious liberty. I know nothing in the constitution. That protects. Well, not even protects that compels the taxpayer through the federal government to pay for contraceptives, nothing. I mean, let me ask you a question, isn't it more necessary for the sustenance of a human being the have food and contraceptives? Contraceptives have nothing to do with sustenance with survival. So. Wouldn't they argue then that you have an absolute right to a meal. If you have an absolute right to contraceptives. Anyway, let's go on. The Obama administration had narrow exceptions and a system of accommodations a work around to religious objections, which a third party insurer would cover birth control. Even if the employer did not keep in mind. It wasn't really that long ago prior to the Obama administration where we had rules in place by congress that said not a penny will be spent by the federal government to subsidize abortions. It's called the Henry Hyde amendment the Hyde amendment you familiar with this Obama turned it onto head. Now. We've judges saying no, no, no, no, you will pay for contraceptives. Even if you're a church that doesn't believe in it. A religious group that doesn't believe in it. An employer who doesn't believe in. It. You shall pay for it? President Trump widen the circumstances under which implores could claim exemptions in an effort to accommodate social conservative. No in an effort to comply with the first amendment. The first amendment. And as they point out right scoop. Obama should have never forced employers or anyone else to pay for contraception. Especially those that could cause abortions. We're funding Planned Parenthood. That's their main activity. Abortions. But now they're saying that even if you have a religious objection to killing a baby in the womb..

Obama Obama administration Trump federal government president California Pennsylvania Obamacare chiefs Henry Hyde United States Columbia executive congress twenty four hours
"california district court" Discussed on KNST AM 790

KNST AM 790

06:22 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on KNST AM 790

"A case. That can infect the entirety of the nation. Some nine hundred of these judges. You can see. That the the percentages against a conservative slash Republican president is much worse than against a democrat slash liberal. President. Because of this form shopping by the left. And I bring this up because we've had a series of cases. Now, we've talked about this at length in the past. Where we have eight district court judge in a city in a courthouse where there's several district court judges. Issuing an injunction. Nationwide. And the greatest associate Justice Clarence Thomas has complained about this. He's complained about it because it's it's not wholly unique. But the spread of it is wholly unique. Every now, and then a judge would do that. And it was frowned upon. Now, they do it willy nilly because Trump is the president. Because Trump is the president. We don't have a threat in this country from an outside Trump presidency muscling its way through separation of powers. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. He's not trying to expand the power of the presidency. He's trying to legitimately use the powers. He's about legislating from the Oval Office. Despite the phony originalists who say he would be if he triggers the national emergencies act. He's trying to follow the rules. But these judges are disaster. A disaster. This is from our buddies at right scoop. And now the injunction on Trump's ObamaCare rule is nationwide. You're already know that the other day a judge in California. Blocked. Trump rule that allowed employers with religious or moral objections to opt out of Obamacare's contraception coverage that affected thirteen states. So a judge. Countermanded the president of the United States the head of the executive branch who's overseeing ObamaCare in the infinite regulations involved in one of the things the president did is he said, you know, this regulation that was put in place by the Obama administration. I'm yanking it in a federal judge a district court judge in Pennsylvania said, oh, no. You're not. I don't agree with you. A Pennsylvania district court judge issued a nationwide injunction Monday afternoon, just as the new policy was slated to take effect. The ruling came less than twenty four hours after a California district court issued a more limited stay in thirteen democratic states and the district of Columbia while challenges are being argued. The Rollings in rapid succession. Both by judges appointed by Barack Obama form shopping. And so when the chief should I say, we don't have Obama judges. He was lying through his teeth. Are the latest legal twists and they dispute over an expansion of health benefits for women out of the Affordable Care Act that is wound through the courts for years. Not an expansion of health benefits. It's contraceptives. Contraceptives that teenagers go into drugstores and by. For pennies almost. The dispute centers on the issue of religious liberty. Specifically the extent to which the government should carve out exceptions for churches, religious groups, and even non religious employers said object to birth control coverage based on their beliefs now, I know there's a part of the constitution in the first amendment that protects religious liberty. I know nothing in the constitution. That protects. Well, not even protects that compels the taxpayer through the federal government to pay for contraceptives, nothing. I mean, let me ask you a question, isn't it more necessary for the sustenance of a human being to have food and contraceptives? Contraceptives have nothing to do with sustenance with survival. So. Wouldn't they argue then that you have an absolute right to a meal. If you have an absolute right to contraceptives. Anyway, let's go on. The Obama administration had narrow exceptions and a system of accommodations a work around to religious objections, which a third party insurer would cover birth control. Even if the employer did not keep in mind. It wasn't really that long ago prior to the Obama administration where we had rules in place by congress that said not a penny will be spent by the federal government to subsidize abortions. It's called the Henry Hyde amendment the Hyde amendment you familiar with this Obama turned it on his head. Now, we've judges saying, no, no, no, no, you will pay for contraceptives. Even if you're a church that doesn't believe in it. A religious group that doesn't believe in it. An employer who doesn't believe in. It. You shall pay for it? President Trump widen the circumstances under which implores could claim exemptions in an effort to accommodate social conservative. No. In an effort to comply with the first amendment. The first amendment. And as they point out right scoop. Obama should have never forced employers or anyone else to pay for contraception. Especially those that could cause abortions. We're funding Planned Parenthood. That's their main activity. Abortions. But now they're saying that even if you have a religious objection to killing a baby in the womb. You shall pay for it? This is called progress. You see? I'll be right back. Been.

President Obama Trump Obama administration president federal government California Justice Clarence Thomas Obamacare Pennsylvania Henry Hyde Oval Office United States Columbia executive congress twenty four hours
"california district court" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

12:26 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"Hello, everybody. Mark Levin here. Our number eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one now, ladies and gentlemen. With a huge institutional problem in this country several but one in particular. It actually was written about in my first book men in black. The supreme court is destroying America. And I would restate that byline. Now, have the federal judiciary is destroying America. Everything's up for grabs. Now. Everything's have progress when it's in front of a single federal district judge. There are around nine hundred give or take federal district judges in this country. Do you know how they're selected? They're not selected like circuit court judges. They're not selected like supreme court justices. It's much more political. I can tell you as somebody who was involved in the process and observe the process during the Reagan administration. One of the positions. I held in. The Reagan administration was associate director, President Trump personnel and one of the areas, I was responsible for was traditional selection. Now, you know, why at least in part Reagan opponent, so many solid people throughout the federal judiciary? Now, I didn't have control over it. And I was involved in it for a few years. But the president of the United States Reagan much like our current president. Donald Trump was hell bent on putting people on the federal bench who would honor the constitution. Want to be a politician? Run for office. You want to be a left wing. Professor get tenure at some college university. You want to be an activist then join some organization and take to the streets. But if you wanna be a federal judge that is a solemn commitment. To our constitution, and our institutional order separation of powers and so forth. President Reagan like President Trump was committed to this. But just so, you know, how district court judges are selected. There's a compromise. It takes place. Let me explain what I mean. And this has been the tradition over many many many decades. There's bargaining that takes place over district court judges because there's many of them. So let's say there's three vacancies. In the state of California. At least when I observe this. The Democrats senators would say, you know, I'm going to put a hold on the Reagan nominees. We might even filibuster them unless we can reach a compromise. And typically, the compromise was okay. We get to you. Give us one as long as one is. It's so crazy that we can't accept it. That's why it's important when you read or you'll hear that's Reagan appointed judge and yet look at that Reagan opponent judger for that matter. Bush appointed judge or another Bush opponent judge or you're gonna Trump appointed jet. He got wow. Even a Trump appointed judge did XYZ fine. Who is that judge and who recommended that judge? Maybe that was one of the compromise. Judges. When it comes to the appellate courts. At least when I was at the White House. No such compromise. I don't know if either the bushes, hopefully, not caved on that. I don't think President Trump has in any respect. So that kind of horse trading. Doesn't go on at the circuit court level. And it certainly doesn't go on at the supreme court level. So you have these federal district judges? Several of them in the major metropolitan areas, obviously, not so many in rural areas, and you've got these organizations that are national organizations with individuals they represent or choose to represent. In districts in district court jurisdictions. Who are known to be more liberal more activist then another parts of the country. And the judges those who are social activist litigators. Look at the list of judges. And even though they're typically randomly picked. They know. They know that in San Francisco more of the district court judges in that city in that metropolitan area are of the Obama elk than they are of the Trump milk or even the Bush elk. Or they might be one of the compromise. But Barbara Boxer in the past or Feinstein in the past. So they forum shop. They formed shop in San Francisco they form shop in Seattle. They formed shop in Baltimore, Maryland, you understand. That's what they do. Now, you might say well don't conservatives do that. The problem is conservatives don't normally go to court to expand government. They just don't we just don't. Court as a last resort. We believe in the elective bodies. So when these judges who have lifetime appointments, the vast majority of them, you've never heard of some of them come out of these these sort of blue chip law firms. Some of them come out of activism, typically on the left. Some of them are well known professors typically on the left, although some who are originalists. They get lifetime appointments. And when these district court judges. Get a case. That can infect the entirety of the nation. Some nine hundred of these judges. You can see. That the the percentages against a conservative slash Republican president is much worse and against a democrat slash liberal president. Because of this forum shopping by the left. And I bring this up because we've had a series of cases. Now, we've talked about this at length in the past. Where we have a district court judge in a city in a courthouse where there several district court judges issuing an injunction nationwide. And the great associate Justice Clarence Thomas has complained about this. He's complain about it because it's it's not wholly unique. But the spread of it is wholly unique. You know, every now, and then a judge would do that. And it was frowned upon. Now, they do it willy nilly because Trump is the president. Because Trump is the president. We don't have a threat in this country from an outside Trump presidency. Muscling its way through separation of powers. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. He's not trying to expand the power of the presidency. He's trying to legitimately use the powers. He's not legislating from the Oval Office. Despite the phony originalists who say he would be if he triggers the national emergencies act. He's trying to follow the rules. But these judges are disaster. A disaster. This is from our buddies at right scoop. And now the injunction on Trump's ObamaCare rule is nationwide. You're already know that the other day judge in California. Blocked at Trump rule that allowed employers with religious or moral objections to opt out of Obamacare's contraception coverage that affected thirteen states. So a judge. Countermanded the president of the United States the head of the executive branch who's overseeing ObamaCare in the infinite regulations involved in one of the things the president did is he said, you know, this regulation that was put in place by the Obama administration. I'm yanking it in a federal judge a district court judge of Pennsylvania said, oh, no. You're not. I don't agree with you. A Pennsylvania district court judge issued a nationwide injunction Monday afternoon, just as the new policy was slated to take effect. The ruling came less than twenty four hours after a California district court issued a more limited stay in thirteen democratic states and the district of Columbia while challenges are being argued. The Rollings in rapid succession. Both by judges appointed by Barack Obama form shopping. And so when the chiefs should I say, we don't have Obama judges. He was lying through his teeth. Are the latest legal twists in a dispute over an expansion of health benefits for women out of the Affordable Care Act that is wound through the courts for years. It's not an expansion of health benefits. It's contraceptives. Contraceptives that teenagers go into drugstores and by. For pennies almost. The dispute centers on the issue of religious liberty. Specifically the extent to which the government should carve out exceptions for churches, religious groups and even non religious employers had object to birth control coverage based on their beliefs now, I know there's a part of the constitution in the first amendment that protects religious liberty. I know nothing in the constitution. That protects. Well, not even protects that compels the taxpayer through the federal government to pay for contraceptives, nothing. I mean, let me ask you a question, isn't it more necessary for the sustenance of a human being to have food and contraceptives? Contraceptives have nothing to do with session it with survival. So. Wouldn't they argue then that you have an absolute right to a meal. If you have an absolute right to contraceptives. Anyway, let's go on. The Obama administration had narrow exceptions and a system of accommodations a work around to religious objections, which a third party insurer would cover birth control. Even if the employer did not keep in mind. It wasn't really that long ago prior to the Obama administration where we had rules in place by congress that said not a penny will be spent by the federal government to subsidize abortions. It's called the Henry Hyde amendment the Hyde amendment you million with this Obama turned it on his head. Now, we've judges saying no, no, no, you will pay for contraceptives. Even if you're a church that doesn't believe in it. A religious group that doesn't believe in it. An employer who doesn't believe in. It. You shall pay for it? President Trump widen the circumstances under which employers could claim exemptions in an effort to accommodate social conservative. No. In an effort to comply with the first amendment. The first amendment. And as they point out right scoop. Obama should have never forced employers or anyone else to pay for contraception. Especially those that could cause abortions. We're funding Planned Parenthood. That's their main activity. Abortions. But now they're saying that even if you have a religious objection to killing a baby in the womb..

President Trump president President Reagan Obama Obama administration Reagan administration federal government Trump California United States Mark Levin America Professor San Francisco Henry Hyde White House Justice Clarence Thomas
"california district court" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

13:15 min | 3 years ago

"california district court" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"L Weather Channel forecast skies tonight. Low twenty five partly cloudy tomorrow, high near forty mostly cloudy, Wednesday, forty five it's thirty seven right now at Reagan national line, Maria Lee on one zero five point nine FM and AM six thirty Washington's mall WBAL. He's here. Now broadcasting from the underground command post. Thousands of a hidden bunker somewhere under the brick and steel of a nondescript building, we've once again made contact with our leader. Hello, everybody. Mark Levin here. Our number eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one now, ladies and gentlemen. With a huge institutional problem in this country several but one in particular. It actually was written about in my first book men in black. The supreme court is destroying America. And I would restate that byline. Now, have the federal judiciary is destroying America. Everything's up for grabs. Now. Everything's have progress when it's in front of a single federal district judge. There around nine hundred give or take federal district judges in this country. Do you know how they're selected? They're not selected like circuit court judges. They're not selected like supreme court justices. It's much more political. I can tell you as somebody who was involved in the process and observe the process during the Reagan administration. One of the positions. I held in. The Reagan administration was associate director, President Trump personnel and one of the areas, I was responsible for was traditional selection. Now, you know, why at least in part Reagan opponents, so many solid people throughout the federal judiciary? Now, I didn't have control over it. And I was involved in it for a few years. But the president of the United States Reagan much like our current president. Donald Trump was hell bent on putting people on the federal bench who would honor the constitution. Want to be a politician? Run for office. You want to be a left wing. Professor get tenure at some college and university. Do you want to be an activist then join somewhere innovation and take to the streets. But if you want to be a federal judge that is a solemn commitment. To our constitution, and our institutional order separation of powers and so forth. President Reagan President Trump was committed to this. But just so, you know, how district court judges are selected. There's a compromise. It takes place. Let me explain what I mean. And this has been the tradition over many many many decades. There's bargaining that takes place over district court judges because there's many of them. So let's say there's three vacancies in the state of California. At least when I observe this. The Democrats senators would say, you know, I'm gonna put a hold on the Reagan nominees. We might even filibuster them unless we can reach a compromise. And typically, the compromise was okay. We get to you. Give us one as long as a one isn't so crazy that we can't accept it. That's why it's important when you read or you hear that's a Reagan appointed judge and yet look at that Reagan opponent judger for that matter a Bush appointed judge or another Bush opponent judge or even a Trump appointed jet you go. Wow. Even a Trump appointee. Judge did XYZ fine. Who is that judge and who recommended that judge? Maybe that was one of the compromise. Judges. When it comes to the appellate courts. At least when I was at the White House. No such compromise. I don't know if either of the bushes, hopefully, not. Caved on that. I don't think President Trump has in any respect. So that kind of horse trading. Doesn't go on at the circuit court level. And it certainly doesn't go on it. The supreme court level. So you have these federal district judges? Several of them in the major metropolitan areas, obviously, not so many in rural areas, and you've got these organizations that are national organizations with individuals they represent or choose to represent. In districts in district court jurisdictions. Who are known to be more liberal more activist then another parts of the country. And the judges those who are social activists litigators. Look at the list of judges. And even though they're typically randomly picked. They know. They know that in San Francisco more of the district court judges in that city in that metropolitan area are of the Obama ilk. Then they are of the Trump milk or even the Bush. Or they might be one of the compromise. But Barbara Boxer in the past or Feinstein in the past. So they formed shop. They formed shop in San Francisco they form shop in Seattle. They form shop in Baltimore. Maryland you understand. That's what they do. Now, you might say well don't conservatives do that. The problem is conservatives don't normally go to court to expand government. They just don't we just don't. Court as a last resort. We believe in the elective bodies. So when these judges who have lifetime appointments, the vast majority of them, you've never heard of some of them come out of these these sort of blue chip law firms. Some of them come out of activism, typically on the left. Some of them are well known professors typically on the left, although some who are originalists. They get lifetime appointments. And when these district court judges. Get a case. That can infect the entirety of the nation. Some nine hundred of these judges. You can see. That the the percentages against a conservative slash Republican president. Is much worse than against a democrat slash liberal. President. Because of this form shopping by the left. And I bring this up because we've had a series of cases. Now, we've talked about this at length in the past. Where we have a district court judge in a city in a courthouse where there several district court judges issuing an injunction nationwide. And the greatest associate Justice Clarence Thomas has complained about this. He's complained about it because it's it's not wholly unique. But the spread of it is wholly unique. You know, every now, and then a judge would do that. And it was frowned upon. Now, they do it willy nilly because Trump is the president. Because Trump is the president. We don't have a threat in this country from an outside Trump presidency. Muscling its way through separation of powers. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. He's not trying to expand the power of the presidency. He's trying to legitimately use the powers. He's not legislating from the Oval Office. Despite the phony originalists who say he would be if he triggers the national emergencies act. He's trying to follow the rules. But these judges are disaster. A disaster. This is from our buddies at right scoop. And now the injunction on Trump's ObamaCare rule is nationwide. All ready know that the other day judge in California blocked at Trump rule that allowed employers with religious or moral objections to opt out of Obamacare's contraception coverage that affected thirteen states. So a judge. Countermanded the president of the United States, the head of the executive branch who's overseeing ObamaCare, and the infinite regulations involved in one of the things the president did is he said, you know, this regulation that was put in place by the Obama administration. I'm yanking it in a federal judge a district court judge of Pennsylvania said, oh, no. You're not. I don't agree with you. A Pennsylvania district court judge issued a nationwide injunction Monday afternoon, just as the new policy was slated to take effect. The ruling came less than twenty four hours after a California district court issued a more limited stay in thirteen democratic states and the district of Columbia while challenges are being argued. The Rollings in rapid succession. Both by judges appointed by Barack Obama form shopping. And so when the chief Justice said, we don't have Obama judges. He was lying through his teeth. Are the latest legal twists in a dispute over an expansion of health benefits for women out of the Affordable Care Act that is wound through the courts for years. It's not an expansion of health benefits. It's contraceptives. Contraceptives that teenagers go into drugstores and by. For pennies almost. The dispute centers on the issue of religious liberty. Specifically the extent to which the government should carve out exceptions for churches, religious groups and even non religious employers said object to birth control coverage based on their beliefs now, I know there's a part of the constitution in the first amendment. That protects religious liberty. I know nothing in the constitution. That protects. Well, not even protects that compels the taxpayer through the federal government to pay for contraceptives, nothing. I mean, let me ask you a question, isn't it more necessary for the sustenance of a human being to have food and contraceptives? Contraceptives have nothing to do with. It's with survival. So. Wouldn't they argue then that you have an absolute right to a meal. If you have an absolute right to contraceptives. Anyway, let's go on. The Obama administration had narrow exceptions and system of accommodations a work to religious objections, which a third party insurer would cover birth control. Even if the employer did not keep in mind. It wasn't really that long ago prior to the Obama administration where we had rules in place by congress that said not a penny will be spent by the federal government to subsidize abortions. It's called the Henry Hyde amendment the Hyde amendment you with this Obama turned it on his head. Now, we have judges saying, no, no, no, no, you will pay for contraceptives. Even if you're a church that doesn't believe in it. A religious group that doesn't believe in it. An employer who doesn't believe in. It. You shall pay for it? President Trump widen the circumstances under which employers could claim exemptions in an effort to accommodate social conservative. No. In an effort to comply with the first amendment. The first amendment. And as they point out right scoop. Obama should have never forced employers or anyone else to pay for contraception. Especially those that could cause abortions. We're funding Planned Parenthood. That's their main activity. Abortions. But now they're saying that even if you have a religious objection to killing a baby in the womb. You shall pay for it? This is called progress. You said. I'll be right back..

President Reagan President Tru President Trump president Obama Donald Trump Obama administration federal government Reagan administration Trump California Washington Bush United States Mark Levin America Professor San Francisco