35 Burst results for "Chief Justice"
Dr. Jill Biden Is A First Lady For All of Us
"Jill biden visits community colleges which is a lot these days. She was received in highly choreographed. Settings by governor say were members of the public as the nation's first lady but to administrators teachers. She has dr. Jill biden college professor at salt community college in illinois. There were pink and white flowers out. Everywhere befitting her visit the even matched her white dress and pink jacket but there was also a welcome. Dr biden sign so huge that the period on the doctor was as big as her head. It felt like a subtle rebuke to that scolding. She was subjected to back in december for using the title. She has every right to indeed in all the places she goes lately. She is honored as a woman with several degrees. Who has worked really hard her whole life at the most relatable job there is. Everyone has a favorite teacher. After all on our visit to the navajo nation. In april dr biden was introduced by someone came to think of as the ruth bader ginsburg of indian country chief justice of the navajo nation. Supreme court joanne. Jane a tiny woman with hair pulled back in a tight ponytail. Winning doc martens dr biden. Millions reap inspiration from your quote. Teaching isn't just what i do. It is who i am in birmingham alabama. She was introduced by a lawyer. Liz huntley a sexual abuse survivor whose parents were drug dealers. I want to thank dr biden from the bottom of my heart for the role that she plays not just the first lady but for her heart for educating she told me she's grading papers on the plane. Y'all what who does that. They say being an educator as a calling in your life that you can't resist and she just won't let it go. December debate of titles seems awfully small in the face of all of this. Jill biden schools visiting vaccinations sites traveling to red states to sell the american rescue. Plan telling folks that help us here. The role she's fulfiling on these visits is in many ways neither first lady nor professor but a key player in her husband's administration a west wing surrogate and policy advocate and underestimated asset. As mary jordan the washington post reporter written a book about melania trump. Put it to me. It's hard to imagine. Joe doing this without her which is not to say that dr biden who is constitutionally shy doesn't take special delight in these visits she becomes looser goofy and more expansive. You generally hear her before you see her because she is often laughing. She is quite simply a joy multiplier as part of her elevator pitch for free community college part of the one point eight trillion american families plan president biden proposed to congress in april. She likes to talk about one of most dedicated students. A military interpreter from san came to america to start a new life a few semesters ago. I got a text trimmer. It was like six in the morning on my way to the hospital. Have my baby research. Paper will be laid to which. I replied excuses excuses.
Mainstream Media Cannot Underestimate Who Iran's President-Elect Ebrahim Raisi Is
"Racy is also likely to succeed the ailing Ali Khamenei. In other words, run the whole country is the supreme leader. Is deeply describing record in mindset, Warren Close examination. So who is this guy racy? Has it been reported on any cable news program has been reported on any network news program. Course not. Raisi became an Islamist ideologue as a teen studying in the seminary in Qom. After the revolution when he was only 19 years old and lacking any university education. He was appointed as a prosecutor. Rising over the following four decades to fill the positions of attorney general keep a deputy chief justice and, most recently, chief justice. Iran's theocratic dictatorship. Most notably racy, was one of four members of a death committee. Responsible for the 1988 execution of thousands and thousands of Iranian prisoners of conscience in the space of a few months. The ideologically motivated mass executions constituted both at crime against humanity and genocide, a cleansing of religious infidels, according to international human rights expert Geoffrey Robertson. It was a massacre, he says comparable with those that shrimp Branca And Kate and Forest. Raisi would typically spend only a few minutes with each prisoner. Some young Children. Asking them questions to test their allegiance to radical Islam. The prisoners, mostly leftist revolutionaries, who would help bring the regime to power typically refused to feign loyalty, even after prolonged and brutal torture. Which in some cases, was personally directed and overseen by racing himself. It's estimated that a minimum
The Goal of the American Marxist Is to Destroy the Current Society
"Depression in this country. The Democrats know it. Keep something in mind. The influence of the American Marxist on the Democrat Party is significant. And what is their goal, ultimately, to destroy the existing society, replace it with some kind of Rube Goldberg Marxist socialist system. They're never very clear about what it is, but it doesn't really matter. Any important storm critical race theory, critical immigration theory Critical trends theory. I call them those things and that's fine. And so for them. It's a win win. But they have to also control the political system. That's precisely why They want to control the Supreme Court. I don't know why they pretty much control it anyway. You can see. Tony Barrett Kavanagh. They've already buckled. John Roberts wants to be the next, uh Chief Justice Warren, So that's three. Um Pretty much there's there's three Constitutional is left on the Supreme Court to in particular one most of the time. And that's where we are. But that's also why they want to change our election laws. They're breaking their backs. They're afraid the house will be taken by the Republicans. Given the economic situation that's right on the horizon. To try and institute with no majority in the Senate. They don't the majority in the Senate. It's the Constitution that gives the vice president of vote. They have no significant majority in their house. They're hanging on by a thread. And by the way, the finished thread in 100 years.
The Obamacare Decision by SCOTUS Shows They Are Cowards
"The obamacare decision by the Supreme Court today is expected. And I'll tell you why not, for reasons so called legal analysts have to say. Because once these unconstitutional laws take hold They're almost impossible to undo. So the Supreme Court by 5 to 4 with Justice Roberts, the chief justice, flipping Wasn't 12 years ago. Turning into a tax case. He wrote The, uh, really the the law into, uh And for two forever Ville. And so no challenge will ever upset it. And Justice. Alito's dissent was brilliant. Gorsuch joined with him. We got all this head counting going on on T V. You know what? But they don't get at any of the substance, of course. This was a tax case. That's what the Supreme Court turned it into. And then when the tax issue Was repealed on the individual mandate by Congress. Suddenly, it's not a tax case anymore. Suddenly it's a standing case. So the Supreme Court turned itself three times. Now on this law, Obamacare into a pretzel. And those lawyers who really are not constitutional lawyers, but maybe their former federal prosecutors or former defense lawyers. Maybe I don't know. Former bankruptcy laws or whatever this is how they use their green eyeshades. And so that's that's not what's going on here. These justices are demonstrating over and over and over again. What a bunch of cowards there. Comey Cavanaugh really, so far disasters. Hopefully, that will change over
Giuliani Speaks for First Time Since Raid
"His New York City apartment and office were raided by the FBI and electronic devices sees President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, calls it unfair. ABC News chief Justice correspondent Pierre Thomas Giuliani's lawyer, telling ABC News. The feds are looking to see whether Giuliani was working as a foreign agent for clients in the Ukraine while he was pressuring that government to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden Giuliani denies it. He also says federal prosecutors are out to get him because they're jealous of his success. President Biden says he's keeping his distance from the investigation, insisting he was not told in advance about the Giuliani Ray starting
History of the Supreme Court
"So to start some general information about the supreme court or Supreme court of the united states is also abbreviated. A skoda's zo. I might throw that in here every now and then make it sound like a man inspired some inside information so the supreme court was formed under article three of the us constitution with its first appointments in seventeen eighty nine so article. Three section one reads quote the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish so the framers of the constitution delineated neither of the exact powers and prerogatives of the supreme court nor the organization of the judicial branch. As a whole they just kind of set out that it would exist so we currently have nine supreme court justices one chief justice and eight associate justices. This number has fluctuated in his set by statute not by the constitution. In seventeen eighty-nine nine. The court actually had six members. It grew as the country expanded so Originally each supreme court justice was associated with a district court so there were district's in that were regions. Where the coins what happened. So in order to make sure that somebody wasn't getting like you know too much work. They they split them up so sure. But as the country expanded we got seven justices in eighteen o seven nine in eighteen thirty seven and actually ten in eighteen sixty three and then we went back down to seven eight hundred sixty
High court halts Calif. virus rules limiting home worship
"The Supreme Court is telling California it can't enforce corona virus related restrictions that have limited home based religious worship the case involved two residents of Santa Clara county who wanted to host small in person Bible study sessions in their homes the California rules limit indoor social gatherings across most of the state to no more than three households and require attendees to wear masks and physically distance the supreme court's five conservative justices agreed restrictions limiting home based worship should be lifted the courts three liberals and Chief Justice John Roberts would not have done so however California has already announced significant changes loosening restrictions on social gatherings does go into effect April fifteenth Ben Thomas Washington
Google Ultimately Prevails Over Oracle in Java API Case
"The. Us supreme court has ruled in google's favor in that big. Copyright dispute with oracle over the use of java api is basically with a six two two vote the justices overturn what had been a big oracle lawsuit victory coating cnbc. The case concerned about twelve thousand lines of code that google us to build android that were copied from the java. Application programming interface developed by sun microsystems which oracle acquired in two thousand. Ten oracle sued google over the use of its code and one. Its case twice before the specialized. Us court of appeals for the federal circuit the supreme court reversed. the federal. circuit's decision justice steven brier. Who wrote the majority opinion. In the case reason that google's use of the code was protected under the copyright doctrine of fair use quote. We reached the conclusion that in this case where a user interface taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program google's copying of the sun java. api was a fair use of that material. As a matter of law brier wrote brier was joined by chief. Justice john roberts and justices sonia yar elena kagan neal gorsuch and brett cavenaugh justices clarence thomas and alito descended and quote so this is huge huge news in terms of software and coding law basically. Api's to some degree are now fair. Use and therefore not copyright -able
NCAA has its day in Supreme Court
"We were about to check in with with rick harrow. Who is our sports business. Expert and rick great to have you back lost you a minute ago. Glad you're back. And i don't know when we've had more legal questions on a sports show but with the supreme court argument yesterday the nfl bill Making the rounds. Who better to talk to than you. Harvard law graduate for those. Who don't know rick went to law school with chief justice roberts. I believe they even were roommates at one time. And rick. thank you for joining us. Enlighten us What's give us the lowdown on what you picked up from yesterday's hearing we were both chicago bear fan. It was abysmal. It was a terrible time. Oh not not the way. We roomed in went to talk about. Nfl stuff so you know. Look the bottom line is there is much more these days than we've had before the nfl. Name image likeness ruling. The allston case will Way to decide how far the ncaa gets to govern this. And ironically when you talk to some of the big time athletic directors all over college Sports they've been trying to figure out how to govern power five as you know versus everybody else versus division two in three verses the other sports versus title nine. They're all bunch of level of financial commitment. And you gotta cover all of them the name image likeness stuff doesn't just involve the top marketable player in college football or basketball. Every year trickle down to all five hundred thousand student athletes in the ncaa men and women so it is not an easy decision. Remember the ncaa. Mark everett last year said. We're going to do it. We both knew the devil was in the details. And it's a big devil.
‘A new day’: Kim Janey sworn in as Boston’s first Black, woman mayor
"Mayor Kim Janey's second day on the job coming up, having been sworn in yesterday. Here's WBC's Karen Regal, Thank you and God bless the city of Boston acting there. Kim Janey was introduced by the first black congresswoman from Massachusetts and sworn in by the first black woman to serve as the state's chief justice. And she held her first mayoral news conference. What about the pandemic? She was asked. So the pandemic first and foremost, what about the police commissioner who's been on leave over domestic violence allegations? Right now? The situation is still under investigation. What about running for mayor of Right now? I'm focused. On being mayor. But I will make a decision and an announcement in the coming weeks acting there. Janie got a high heel got in a cobblestone on City Hall Plaza as she left the news conference. That's something the other mayors didn't have to worry about. Said. Boston's first woman mayor. With
Interview with Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky
"Talk to me about going forward and connecting people and the focus. You're putting on experiences but also on the lives you can create for your host. Who in part. I think are taking equity and becoming quite important for the brand. We've just heard in london here this week. That uber has said its drivers will become workers with benefits and minimum wage. So they're getting brought into the companies. So how do you sort of to advance the experience of your host but also the people that are using the platform to rent yet to great questions. Maybe i'll start with the second question host. And then i'll go to the first one the different like let's just take us versus uber. One difference in us an uber is the founders of uber created uber because they wanted to be writers another words they said it would be awesome if i could summon a black car so they started on the buyer side. We were totally opposite. My roommate and i weren't desiring to have a service like airbnb to travel because we were too broke to even want such a service. I mean we would have loved it but we were so broke. We just wanted to way to make money so we really started as host. So in that sense. I think this is a company of hosts by host for host and even if we have veered from that in the past. We're back there. And so i'm very proud of the fact that number one host have made one hundred and ten billion dollars on our platform since we started. That's pretty cool. The next thing. I'm saying i think it's cooler. Fifty five percent of that income has gone to women most ecommerce platforms. The vast majority economics. They're not evenly distributed on airbnb. The vast majority of income is outside the united states and more than half of it goes to women. it's a pretty diverse audience. We have four million host on airbnb. Ninety percent of our hosts are individual people so there is a question. How many of these are professionals. The answer is ten percent ninety percent of individuals. The most common careers are healthcare workers schoolteachers. In students these are the three most common professions that we've seen so these are truly everyday people like my parents. My parents are social workers. And it would make sense that people who need supplemental income would be everyday people for the most part one of the things we did before it went public. Is i got a piece of advice from somebody. They said. institutionalize your intentions. So that even as a public company you can minimize conflicts. Your vision and what they really meant was wants to go public. The cement of your company gets a little harden. What do you want to bake into the company before you go public. And i said one of the things i want to bake in is to create a host endowment. I want to set aside equity for host and so one of the things we did is we took nine point. Two million shares of airbnb equity and we put it into is essentially a airbnb host endowment kind of like a college endowment where it would grow every year but then some of the appreciation would get distributed into the host each year. So that was the idea that endowment is nearly two billion dollars today and growing. I hope it's one day. Larger than most college endowments and we created a host advisory board of seventeen host from fourteen countries to advise us on how to spend that money and reinvest it back to the host community. We also allowed host to invest in our ipo. And we had. I think it was fifteen thousand host. If i'm not mistaken who invested. They bought stock at sixty eight dollars. A share as you know the stock prices at the time of this recording around triple so those hosts have done really well and if i could allowed winning more host to invest in the whatever but we had some sec regulations that limited us and so these are just some of the many things we tried to do. But i just want to say like our commitment to host just beginning. Because i've committed to putting more than one hundred million dollars in my own equity into the host endowment and we're gonna continue to invest in our host because we are nothing without our host and in the end the day everybody's more of a community anything else i mean. Yeah we are a technology company in a sense but with people are buying isn't technology and they're not buying real estate we're not like zillow wh- senator of our company our host and our people and so that leads to the second question. What is airbnb about in. Where's it going when we started airbnb. Our first tagline was travel like a human. The idea was that you were like kind of treated for who you are. And you're seen for who you are valued for who you are and that was kind of the idea. I mean it was idealistic. But i can tell you. We definitely believed it in the early days and we realized that i had these two crazy ideas when we start airbnb. These crazy beliefs and people thought i was absurd. The first idea was we thought people were fundamentally good. That sounds kind of crazy because if you open any newspaper you wouldn't think they're good. People are good wise every headline about the worst of humanity. I think there was a famous quote by a former chief justice. The united states. You said i don't read the front page of the newspaper. I read the sports section. The front pages filled the man's failures. The sports pages. Filled man successes. I kind of feel like despite what we read in the news. People are funny. Good and i can tell you that we have the data to prove it. We probably more than anyone to prove what happens. When a hundred million people live together. Mostly good things sometimes bad things but statistically people are good and the second thing is true is that people are ninety nine point nine percent the same and you would never think that today given that we are so divided and yeah we spent a lot of time energy celebrating that point one percent. That makes us different. We call that culture in other things but let's not forget that we're mostly the same deep down and if you think people are good and their most the same then you'd believe that it's better to bring them together than divide them in separate them. That was the idea behind airbnb and so real estate and housing is just the beginning. We launched a few years ago. Airbnb experiences air experiences are essentially just three hour activities where you can have a host host. One other passions. You can go to tuscany. And make pasta with grandma grandma. Non an arena. Who's like an eighty plus year old grandmother who grew up during world war. Two and tells you about living in italy during the rise of fascism and then kind of what happened after and she tells you about her famous recipe and you make pasta in her house with and then you eat around the table this alternative to going to restaurants a pretty cool alternative so we have these like really interesting experiences and i think experiences is going to be a really really big product. I thought last year was going to break out year. But of course social distancing met we put on pause but we're looking at many new ways to try just connect people again. I think this is one of the loneliest times in human history right now. I think most people listening would probably say they felt some type of loneliness in the last year. We've been so separated. And i think in life we sometimes appreciate things when they're taken away from us and human connection and travels been taken away from us and i hope that makes us value at more than ever before and i'm pretty concerned about the amount of isolation happening and i don't think that social media and digital connections are fully nourishing. We actually do need real connection with real people. And i actually think it's good. Connect people are different than you. If you wanna like bridge the divide in any country. The best answer. I've heard is to just walk in other people's shoes don't argue over the internet. No one's ever changed. Someone's mind on a youtube comment section to my knowledge. But how could you not change your mind when you walk in someone. Just home live in their home walk. In their shoes do their activities. You may not agree with them but you will find that. Most of them are good and they're mostly just like you deep
Kim Janey Sworn In As Boston’s 55th Mayor In Historic City Hall Ceremony
"Swearing in ceremony at Boston City Hall for the city's first woman and black mayor of Boston. WBC's James RoHaas was at City Hall. Before the big swearing in. Not only is Kim Jeannie making history, but she's being joined by some other local trail Blazers Chief Justice Kimberly Bud administering the oath of office. She is the first black woman to lead the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court presiding over the ceremony. Congresswoman I Ana Presley, the city's first black woman on the city Council. Families,
Two charged in assault on police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died after Jan. 6 Capitol riot
"You man have been charged with assaulting Capitol police Officer Brian Sickening who died the day after the insurrection. ABC chief Justice correspondent Pierre Thomas federal prosecutors charging 32 year old Julian cater of Pennsylvania. And 39 year old George 10 EOS of West Virginia with assaulting, sickening, accusing the men of using toxic chemicals possibly bear spray on sick Nick and
Supreme Court hears arguments in voting rights case out of Arizona
"So i just wanna know the supreme court case this week because it's one of the biggest election cases in the decade it's about section two of the voting rights act which is the main provisions. And how what the test should be for having to prove a violation of this part of the voting rights act and this is a big question because we lost the other part of voting rights. Act that had the justice department and the role of pre approving things like closing polling places. And so now what's left. After a fact ability to sue if the vote has been abridged or deny two african american spanich or language community voters like native americans in the supreme court arguments. This week in some ways. It seemed like the party's weren't that far away from each other for what the test should be some kind of substantial effect on a minority group. Except i should say the republican party of arizona which wanted the standard to be that basically any race neutral voting regulation would pass muster no matter what discredit on those groups. But what. I think really is very likely to come from this. Conservative majority a ruling. That makes it much harder to sue that you're going to have to show a substantial effect. That has nothing to do with socio economics. For example that they're just gonna really raise the bar here. And i should note that chief justice john roberts has been a longtime interest of his since he was court clerk. He's the author of shelby county which gutted the other part of voting rights act in two thousand thirteen. And so this is one where it looks like the liberals on the court are probably going to lose and it's going to be quite a big deal so one to watch
House Cancels Thursday Session After Police Warn Of Possible Attack On Congress
"Capitol Police say they have uncovered intelligence of a possible plot by a militia group to breach the U. S capital today. CBS chief Justice and Homeland Security correspondent Jeff to Gaze reports, the House wrapped up its work for the week, given the threat of violence, the capital, locking down again ahead of more threats from domestic extremists, including many what act the building on January 6, this new bulletin obtained by CBS News. Warns of more violence with little or no warning. The threat is driven by a Cuban on conspiracy theory that former President Trump will be inaugurated tomorrow March forth, the acting chief of the U. S. Capitol, police said threats against lawmakers have almost doubled in the last year. We know that the threats are through the roof. The bulletin also mentions militia plans to take control of the U. S Capitol and remove
Former aide accuses Andrew Cuomo of sexual harassment, felt 'scared'
"New york governor andrew. Cuomo says he wants an independent investigation into sexual harassment. Claims made by two former aides. And the governor is asking the state's attorney general and chief justice to appoint someone to do with attorney general. Letitia james says that she is ready to oversee that investigation and make any appointment or necessary appointments and she also stated in power. There must be a truly independent investigation to go thoroughly to review. These troubling allegations against the governor. All of this after a report by the new york times charlotte bennett says her former boss. Cuomo would ask her questions about her intimate relationships. And if she ever been with older men bennett says she felt scared. And she thought this would mean the end of her job. In november the twenty five year old left her role as an executive assistant and a health policy advisor. Fox's alex
New York Gov. Cuomo Asks AG, Top Judge to Appoint Investigator
"The state's attorney general and chief justice to appoint an independent investigator to look into sexual harassment claims against the governor. This follows The New York Times report yesterday, which says a second former aide came forward to say Cuomo made inappropriate advances. The latest allegation comes from a former executive assistant to the embattled governor. Charlotte Bennett claims Andrew Cuomo asked her quote questions about her sex life and if she ever had sex with older men and quote, a 25 year old former aide said the 63 year old made the comments back in June in his office, but said the governor never physically touched her. Limo denied the claims and asked for an independent review. Into them. This comes to stays after the first claim of sexual harassment by Cuomo from Lindsey Boylan, this all while the controversy over his nursing home scandal continues a gun store owner and Albany put up a giant billboard along the highway calling for Cuomo to be impeached, who's actually stronger? Cpac's headline speech
Justice Department says an Oath Keepers leader waited for Trump's direction before Capitol attack
"Donald Trump's legal team gets ready to make their case A B C's chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas tells the start here Podcast on ABC. There are some new federal charges in connection with the January 6 deadly capital riot. Some of these charges are against the group. That calls themselves the oath keepers, according to this affidavit. Some of the planning took place in November when suspected oath keeper a woman by the name of Jessica Watkins discuss operational plans with the co defendant, Thomas Caldwell. That included quote establishing a quick reaction force stationed near the capital to provide weapons and to await orders to enter D. C. Under permission from Trump. Not a minute Sooner. End quote. Five people died. As a result of the riot are New York Governor Andrew
"chief justice" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"Scalia about how these balancing tests are like judging whether a particular line is longer than a particular rock is heavy but then Bill Roberts reaches back to older precedent planned. Parenthood v Casey in Nineteen ninety-two in strikes down the law. Anyway, so, what do you make of his attempt to? Looks like he's trying to have it both ways. Trying to have it both ways I think look I think the if you look at the defense in this case. warned the common themes. IS THAT SINCE ROE? Abortion jurisprudence has been dishonest that it's all about outcomes, even going back to planned parenthood versus Casey. If you look at it, they basically throughout everything in row except its conclusions and the chief justice knows better. That's what's been so disappointing about him. In picking this and I think it's really dangerous because again one of the. To me, one of the best text to read is Scalia. Descent and planned parenthood versus Casey where talks about how poisonous poisonous it is to take this issue out of the democratic process and leave it to a handful of people on the Supreme Court I think we're seeing another answer. We already have conservatives now questioning the important supreme court picks. They say welcome after just GonNa. Rule this we're going to do the hard work of democracy and get laws passed in, and wore the right way, and then the Supreme Court. Just going to throw it out that that is a recipe for real bitterness. As again as Scalia pointed out in Casey, it deprives the losers of the constellation of a fair fight. Another criticism I've seen Kim. Is that Justice Chief Justice Roberts was not afraid of overturning precedents in other cases. you know Janice v APPs me? About Union Fair share fees. Or citizens united and citizens united. He actually has a section in his opinion on starting to this where he says. Abrogating Aaron precedent rather than reaffirming or extending, it might better preserve the laws coherence, and so that's something else that that that people are saying makes this use of the doctrine. Look like it was predicated on the outcome. Absolutely and indeed you could make the case that even in this opinion. This week. that he wrote, he actually threw out some recent precedents. In particular on the question of standing or the issue of who is allowed to bring a lawsuit, normally The court doesn't accept what call Third Party standing in which you are suing on someone else's behalf, because you need the ability to show direct home to you yourself, though the plaintiff and one thing that was really notable about this. Case in Louisiana, is that not a single woman? Who supposedly had been denied in abortion? was a plaintiff in here now, women seeking an abortion wasn't and plaintiff instead the the plaintiffs were abortion providers but the problem as it. Abortion providers aren't hurt here because there is no constitutional right to perform an abortion and moreover you could make the case that you know. They weren't singled out in any way here. Because Louisiana requires admitting privileges for lots of medical procedures. Including as we noted in our editorial, things like laser guy surgery, even in case something goes amiss, so you know one of the things that Neil gorsuch pointed out in his dissent is that? At least one of the major hospitals in Louisiana even eased its omitting rules for abortion providers after the law passed, but the you know, John. Roberts just ignored all of this and and Kinda glossed over the whole third party standard, which is something that the court has?.
"chief justice" Discussed on KPCC
"Mister Chief Justice thank you for the question and I believe that under oppressor Dershowitz is there a member he trying to categorize things into three buckets one is purely good motives one is well you might have some motor for your personal political gain as well as public interest motives for doing something our intent and then there's the third bucket of purely private pecuniary gain and he said that's the one if you're doing it for purely private pecuniary gain that's a problem and I think that would be the distinguishing factor in the what is potentially a presence in the facts known about the buy Denver reason incident because the conflict of interest that would be apparent on the face of the facts that are known is that there would be a personal family financial interest in that situation vice president Biden is in charge of Ukraine policy his son is sitting on the board of a company that is known for corruption the public reports are that apparently the the prosecutor general was investigating that company and its owner the oligarchs at the time then vice president Biden's quite openly said that he leveraged a billion dollars in US loan guarantees to ensure that that particular prosecutor was fired at that time one could put together fairly easily from those known facts the suggestion that there was a family financial benefit coming from the end of that investigation because it protected the position of the younger Biden on the board.
"chief justice" Discussed on KDWN 720AM
"Now at eight seven seven three eight one three eight one one you know folks like I'm actually starting to steam during the break over a with the Chief Justice David rand Paul's question more and more I think about this this whistle blower so called started this whole thing at least he was the Avenue through which shift and the Democrats operated and I would love to ask the Chief Justice of the United States question does he know of any other court in this country any kind of court in this country where it is justified on any grounds to prevent the accused from confronting the accuser he's the Chief Justice of the United States this is even more important then a criminal case involving embezzlement there's something of that sort this is a trial over whether the president of the United States should be removed from office and the twenty sixteen election reversed and whether the Republican Party can even nominee Donald Trump to be its nominee for a second term and senator Paul courageously and you know I criticize him strongly by courageously the only one who sends a specific question to be asked of Adam Schiff regarding turn around and his staff for miss go relating to how this all started and the Chief Justice rules that it's not appropriate question he's not going to ask this is outrageous more I think about this why is it that Chief Justice why doesn't allow the question because the Washington post's hasn't used the guy's name why is that it's not his job to censor it's not his job to tow the line the United States senator asked a question follow the rules of the Senate there's nothing in those roles and say this is off limits the initial main celebrated accuser of the president of the United States that the Democrats used to trigger the some tire share Hey senator had some legitimate questions and the Chief Justice Chief Justice refuses to read the question the presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted the presiding officer should read the question is submitted in my view he abused his office and he abused his power by refusing to allow that question to be asked and I don't care if the Democrats like it or not I don't care if Collins and Ronnie recounts the like it or not I don't care if the New York Times or The Washington Post or cable TV likes it or not that doesn't matter and the Chief Justice of the United States should not the accused in the accused council have a right to know who the accuser is and where the accuser was working what the lead house manager to create this entire disgusting scenario and instead what's happening tonight is rand Paul's being attacked what a joke of a process honest to god what a joke of the process as this is being treated and John Roberts blow it big time big time and even there the Democrats and going back and forth depending on what strategy they think all work Adam Schiff said although we're going to have a public hearing with this this whistleblower my god he's going to blow trump right out of the water then his lawyers get nervous and then ship is exposed as a big mouthful liar for lying to the American people Anne we don't know this is you know I staff and I we never spoke to but his staff did speak to chief is lying now tell me he doesn't know who it is ladies and gentleman it was in real clear politics Paul Sperry wrote a long piece about I. ready to go on the air and others have to how could you miss it what do you mean you don't know who it is you're not even allowed to call this Eric charm LA you're not allowed to ask them you're not allowed to put him under oath is what I want John ball we want what we want Eric turno naked he's irrelevant he's what do you mean is irrelevant no one saw blauer he filed a complaint he accused the president of the United States I would have paid apparently according to the Democrats well we got all the information we need the Democrats say who cares what they say the defense or a senator doesn't have to go by what man I've learned ships say this guy started the whole thing you're not allowed the name of on the Senate floor the Chief Justice obstructs a question from rand Paul circuses this we have to have witnesses we at their witness just not back when it just not hunter Biden it's just not this one it just and they go on this is unfair I heard this idiot Angus king named after a cow parents must I hated him he's an independent don't you know you know he said we don't have any witnesses the president has not been exonerated so even when the Senate trial present is not exonerated if he wins twenty twenty the election is fixed ladies and gentleman we better get more people to the polls and ran this down their throats because someone Tyson if they win the next election it's not only do for the country doing for your children and grandchildren they will become even more to radical more fascistic and so will the media when I say that a let's go to Jim Las Vegas Nevada Sirius satellite go great when you're right I got a quick comment yeah yes president trump when president trump wins reelection maybe Robert can retire with give birth yeah that's not gonna happen I know I just I mean retirement wishful thinking but my question is so the president has the power to do executive order yes and well it depends what it is all what I was my question so what do you have the executive order and Obama did look the what let me just tell you how works at the White House having been there an executive order what do they look at it depends on the facts of this in the circumstances you don't use executive orders in lieu of lawmaking so the president looks of the president the use of executive orders in the past which really were heavily used quite frankly in the past were really starting with Franklin Roosevelt who is a many ways fascistic many ways choose the IRS is use the FBI his abuse of the Supreme Court I could go on and on and on and of course the left loves why because he started this whole process of democratic socialism really Woodrow Wilson did but obviously FDR use the occasion of the depression to advance beyond beyond anybody's imagination now that said so executive orders were initially intended to direct the executive branch to implement a regulation that affects a rule rather that affects the executive branch or statue that affects the executive branch is an executive order in terms of that more of administrative application when a girl from there there are gaps in the law so president began using executive orders to fill the gaps or their contradictions the law one law contradicts another so president might issue an executive order for that there may be budgetary allowances like the present United States has moved some funds from X. tell why which have been permitted in the past and I'll do that what's different with Obama with docket is he issued an executive order in lieu of a congressional statute that apply to a legal alien if they're not really children anyone under the age of thirty something or not and defied Congress in bypass Congress and the Democrats were thrilled with it they thought it was great well they run around attacking trump claiming old Curtis he could be a monarch let me ask you a question my friend is a monarch allow a special counsel to investigate him there are absolutely no is a monarch allow a so called Congress to investigate him there's a monarch allow people who are around him who stabbed him in the back to roam free Lee I mean he hasn't done anything like a monarchy isn't violated the constitution any federal law any court order so they come up this is why they come up with these cockamamie or abuse of power and he obstructed us we have to remove him because he obstructed us my friend excellent call we'll be right back then it's time to check the roads from the try to afternoon this look at traffic sponsored by staples some slow go fifteen heading north to fifteen over the flamingo that would get a wreck north bound just north of Tropicana southbound fifteen a lot of slowing showing up from ninety five over to spring mountain in ninety five north bound a slow ride Russell over to flamingo crash with injuries.
"chief justice" Discussed on Article II: Inside Impeachment
"Hey It's Chris as you know sometimes it's good to just take a step back from the day to day onslaught of news and take our broader. Look the issues. That's what I'm doing each week on my podcast. Why is this happening? Were exploring topics ranging from school segregation and to climate change. Well the way that I think it is. Climate Change will be to the twenty first century. What modernity west of the nineteenth century it'll be the central subject of questions about economic justice us? Everything that you care about in the world will be affected by climate and digging deep with guests uniquely qualified to analyze issues from mass incarceration to race relations. As you know for the first time in Dr History at the national level whites are on the verge of losing their majority status in twenty years. And I think it's no coincidence that our politics are getting more tribal. Join me for. Why is this happening? New episodes every Tuesday. Wherever you get your podcasts? So we've been talking about the last impeachment the trial in the Senate the role of the chief justice back. Then William Rehnquist. Let's get to the present tense right now if there is a Senate trial for the impeachment of Donald Trump. It'll be John Roberts current chief justice presides over that Roberts has been on the court really fifteen years now. Doesn't seem like it's Bennelong but it's been fifteen years and he actually succeeded needed Rehnquist as as the chief justice when he passed away yes and he was. He was one of Rehnquist's clerks so that doesn't often happen that a former clerk replaces the justice. For whom Tom he wants clerk. But that's what happened there. What is Robert's reputation that he that he would carry into a Senate trial well remember at his confirmation hearing he said It was the job of justices and judges to call the balls and strikes but not to decide who pitches who bats and I will decide every case based on on the record according to the rule of law without fear or favor to the best of my ability and I will remember that. It's my job to call balls balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat. You know that's the reputation he's tried to have as one of judicial modesty and there've been a lot of people who say he he hasn't stuck with that of critics have been especially conservatives were critical of his ruling that rescued obamacare but for the most part He has moved the supreme cream court in an incremental way toward a more conservative direction. But he's not somebody who sees the limelight. There's been some suggestions that the The reputation tation of the court the kind of standing of the Supreme Court in American life ways on John Roberts a little bit you go back. Twenty years the Bush Gore decision Asian that Kinda settled the two thousand election the politicization of the Supreme Court it becomes an issue in in presidential elections. We hear about Donald Trump appealing to the conservative -servative base by promising. Hey somebody from this list will go on the Supreme Court the idea you know they did a lot of folks look at the court now is there are democratic. Justices in Republican. Justices hates that way him in. Does that affect how he would handle something like this. Well yes and no I mean he. I'm sure he goes in there not intending to be anybody's servant he's not going in there to push the proceedings in either a Republican or Democratic Direction. He certainly not going to be the Republicans judge judge but the other thing is even if he wanted to be he couldn't he doesn't have that much power that's the other part of it. The Senate really has all the control over this you the Mitch. McConnell the majority leader. He's talked a little bit about his expectations for how a trial would go including last month How he thought Roberts would handle this? The way this will work is is I would anticipate the chief. Justice would not actually make any rulings he would simply submit motions to the body A and we would vote was McConnell trying to deliver any message there. Well I don't know whether McConnell was trying to tell chief you know just lie back and let us run the thing but in fact that's really how it works now. I don't think he's GonNa Dodge every single question and leave it to the Senate. I think he will have to make some rulings there'll be some procedural angel rulings and by the way A lot is going to depend on whether the Senate calls live witnesses. They did not do that. In the Clinton impeachment they they had had witnesses that were interviewed before the trial when the house managers presented their case. They brought monitors onto the Senate floor and played little videotape excerpts. oops if they have live witnesses on the floor of the Senate. I can't imagine they're going to do that. They seem to not to want to but if they did then I think there would be a lot more or call for the chief to rule on whether certain statements are admissible or not if it were to come to John Bolton or some other live witness testifying vying in a Senate trial. Obviously that would be a difference from what you got in the Clinton trial in one thousand nine hundred ninety nine. What are the variables that Roberts the John Roberts presiding over this would then face that rehnquist didn't have to face back in ninety nine well It's just like in a normal trial. Where a lawyer asks a question and Council Salon the other side says objection is irrelevant? It's immaterial it calls for speculation it's hearsay or whatever and then Roberts is going to have to make rulings rulings now. The federal rules of evidence don't directly apply in a Senate impeachment trial And the rules. Don't really say much about relevance. It just says that the presiding officer gets to decide whether let's see. I'm looking at the rules right now. He may rule on all questions of evidence including but not limited to questions of relevancy materiality and redundancy of evidence an incidental questions which shall stand as the judgment of the Senate unless it's some member of the Senate. She'll ask that a formal vote. Be Taken so in theory. He has the authority to rule on these objections. But in fact the Senate has the ultimate say so if they want an answer they're gonna hear it so again. It's it's that prospect of the jury overriding the Josh. Gosh exactly right. They don't see that one law and order no so yeah last question. I mean again this. This idea that this will be the third impeachment trial in history history. folks looking back twenty thirty fifty years from now. Maybe longer would always see John Roberts name as part of this process if there's a Senate trial But it sounds like the way you describe it. He doesn't want that well he doesn't want it. And in fact he just as Salmon Chase and William Rehnquist before fell be footnotes in the history of these impeachment trials because their role is really as I say largely ceremonial in theory. They've got a lot of power in fact they you don't alright. NBC Justice correspondent. Pete Williams. Pete really appreciate your doing this. Thank you my pleasure. Article Michael to inside impeachment is produced by Isabel. Angel Max Jacobs Clear Tie Aaron Dolton Pref- Iverson Alison Bailey. Adam Novoa and Barbara Rab. Our Executive Producer user is Ellen. Franken Steve League tie the executive producer of audio. I'm Steve Kornacki. We back on Monday. Folks thanks thanks Pitas in from Germany By the made the press. Chuck Todd Cast. It's an insider's take on politics the twenty twenty election and more candid conversations with some of my favorite reporters about things. We usually discuss off camera. Listen for free wherever you get your podcast..
"chief justice" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Presiding judge has just incredible forty over the process I was wondering what your understanding of the role of the chief justice presiding judge related to the admission of evidence calling of witnesses and perhaps his inclination to curb imagination Mitch McConnell Stephen things that's a great question and you'll cocktail I feel like you are very well positioned to this answer this too because don't you run the same Supreme Court practice the Chief Justice John Roberts did so how do you think he will preside over this we are so I mean I've had the privilege of arguing now forty cases in front of him and he is such a fair person look I mean he definitely has made will in fact disagree with some vehemently and others that I've agreed with like health care but but I think in every account to its its fairness to law in principle the kinds of things that we've been talking about for the last half hour in so I do think that's how you know he will approach the job you also press the job I think with a light touch Chief Justice Roberts himself clerk for the last Chief Justice chief transit to feature justice Rehnquist they were you know he was a law clerk and Rehnquist presided over the impeachment of Bill Clinton and I think took a very light touch so much so that at the end of the whole thing he said I did very little and I did it very well the countdown I think that that will be the chief justices basic approach to this so the constitution requires him to preside over the impeachment trial of the presidency but it doesn't really specify much of his well beyond that yes and I want to talk with you more about the role that she just as John Roberts after the break we'll have more with attorney Neil cocktail stay with us well I ten twenty nine let's take advantage of this break in the rebroadcasts of this morning's form and catch up with traffic.
"chief justice" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"Confirmations me. No that was my favorite reference. Thank you so great. I'm good at what do you know what that's from cost less. We're not going to tell you what it's very insular yes so he took him two years to get confirmed but I know but he finally did and then so he worked on the U._S.. Court of Appeals Circuit from two thousand three two thousand and five for sure I in because he was nominated to the Supreme Court to fill Sandra Day O'Connor seat and this is GonNa get crazy so he was nominated by Bush so w right he was in the court for the circuit court for two years and then obviously Sandra Day O'connor step down but it got more dramatic because literally literally a few months later so he got nominated in July and then in September of that same year of two thousand and five are boy that we've talked about justice William Rehnquist Rehnquist died so oh w right withdrew Roberts nomination to fill o'connor's and put him forward as the candidate to replace the chief justice. Wow isn't that crazy isn't that crazy. History will in the courts for two years and then like you seem like a chief and reading chief for meeting. I'm getting very cheap vibes yeah so and that that is like that's what's the nomination process that he went through to become the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States so very cool on September twenty ninth two thousand and five John Roberts was confirmed seventy eight to twenty two to become the chief justice. Just the supreme court he is the youngest chief justice to be approved since John Marshall who served in eighteen a one presumably at age thirteen because how old because he could he had basel why I just like I imagined you why nine year old being like all right. You're all you're the goat so is in modern history. The youngest chief justice we've ever had <hes> he has the highest approval of seventy eight out of any chief justice we've had attended though they raked that great and then in his Senate confirmation hearing he said this quote which I found super funny he was comparing the office or the job to that of a baseball umpire. He's a simple boy with simple needs needs. He said this quote. It's my job to call balls and strikes not to pitch or bat. I feel like he's lived up to that. I think he's lived up to that. He's lived up to that. I love a metaphor you know I love him so good. I live for a metaphor good one ten what what's more American than Mr Chief Justice talking about baseball that is wow and as we know historically he is often considered to be a a key swing vote instead of being purely conservative judge even though he was like categorically is because he was nominated by a Republican president. He's worked for two of them. He is yes yeah. He's worked for Reagan an ambush. Oh three of them three again Papa Bush Bush. Please forget about Papa so sorry we gotta get your president. I'm sorry recipes he is. This is just a personal life fun fact he's married with two children who are adopted. Oh I know look adopting is amazing and this was something I saw my research and I thought it was worth noting because we don't see see that especially like a like a Catholic you think they just breed the grandfather was eighteen. They breed they breed. They adopt children so let's talk about big cases both yeah he's obviously not even close to all of them but these are just a couple of big ones that he was either. Hi there a key swing vote in more he wrote opinions for that were interesting and or problematic more limited on great so the first big one was citizens united versus the Federal Election Commission and I literally this is from Thought Co.. I put a quote of what this is about because I needed it. 'cause I hear citizens united all the time and it's hard to for me so this is the quote..
"chief justice" Discussed on We The People
"When for example, when the health of the mothers at stake. Third testing laws that require women have ultrasounds for example, and for notification a doctor's telling women about other options when you look about when you look forward to what the supreme court may do Clark. You believe that Rohan Casey should be overturned, the conventional wisdom at the moment, whether it's correct, or not is that chief Justice Roberts will not be eager formerly to overturn Roe v. Wade, but may instead prefer to uphold some of these restrictions under the Casey undue burden standard without formally repudiating. Do you agree with that conventional wisdom? And if it's right, what kind of laws, do you think are likely to be upheld in the short and medium term? Maybe you could give us a sense of what you're expecting over the next couple of years. Well, first of all, it's obvious at least up to now that the. Court is going slow on the abortion issue. If they're four cases before it now to from Indiana. One from Alabama one from Louisiana. The court could decide to take any or all of those or none of those, and they could decide to do that, by the end of the term or they could kick the can down the road to the fall. So there's a great deal of uncertainty, but up to now it's clear that the court is going slow on the issue. But, you know, the you mentioned the laws coming out of, of some of the red states. But the blue states are going in an opposite direction in ex expectation that the court is going to overturn Roe sooner or later. That's what we call federalism in this country and, and federalism will better reflect public opinion on this issue, rather than the one-size-fits-all dictate that the court issued in Roe versus Wade. And so. I might not have written any of these laws, the way they're written or all these laws, the way they're written. But the fact is, that's what it means to live in the United States and have a system of federalism, in which the people can keep their legislators accountable to them express their opinion and have public policy of fitting better with public opinion, rather than the unsettled forty six years, we've had under Roe versus Wade in which the court's decision has obviously conflicted with democratic action, Catherine your thoughts about whether you agree with the conventional wisdom that chief Justice Roberts may not be eager to overturn Roe, and therefore uphold draconian time restrictions that would ban reproductive choice from the moment of conception as the Alabama law would do, but instead, they'd be more inclined to uphold. Conditions on reproductive choice, t testing laws in notification laws on the Casey onto burden standard. And, and if that's right. What will the effect on women beat? So I think there's two issues here. One is will the court take an abortion case and, and make a new ruling and win. So let's start with weather. I absolutely think an abortion case will go to court soon. It may be out of one of these four cases that are currently pending. It may be one of the band's, but frankly, as a matter of practical reality, it makes very little difference. I am of the view. Unlike what you originally said that there are five oats on this current court to overturn Roe Justice. Roberts is not going to be our savior here, Justice Roberts was mentored by chief Justice Rehnquist. He took positions against abortion early in his career in a variety of different ways. He joined the court in the very limited view star, deci. Isis in this Hayek case just couple of weeks ago, chief Justice Roberts is not going to save us here. And in fact, I think it makes very little difference..
"chief justice" Discussed on Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart
"The. Hi, Jonathan Kaye part and welcome to this special edition of Cape up. I'm so angry at Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts that Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer of New York, he's angry at the supreme court over its twenty thirteen decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act and ushered in a new era of voter suppression. That's going to make a big push on voting rights. Not only does he want to fix the court. Shelby decision. He also wants automats registration and DC statehood. This was a relatively quick conversation packed with information and high hopes here at all right now. Senator schumer. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. It's good to be here. Jonathan we've known each other probably close to thirty years almost thirty years. And so when you called I said, we'll absolutely I will come and talk to you. And you wanted to talk about something specific I did. And that is our our push on voting rights. Voting rights is one of the it is probably the most fundamental building block of democracy. This is what the founding fathers created. And this is what millions of Americans have fought for hundreds of millions of Americans have died for as well. And so when voting rights is being impinged upon when it's being made much harder. We have to do something about it. So the house passed h r one I am for it. But we're not in the majority in the Senate, hopefully, we will be in twenty twenty one and then we can pass HR one as well. And God willing democratic. The president signed it. But now as leader I'm going to focus on three things above all the first is to undo the damage done by Shelby Shelby was one of the worst court decision's, ever, rendered them. Shelby v holder thirteen correct? I am so angry at Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts. You know, when he came before us, he said, he's going to call balls and strikes. I voted against him. Because I wasn't sure that he would do that. And then, unfortunately, my vote was vindicated and Shelby is one of his three words decisions the others being citizens United which allowed money to cascade into our country and the other being Janice which made it much harder for labor unions to organize but Shelby was particularly despicable. Because what Robert said is there's no more bigotry around the we don't need what's called pre clearance before any locality in seventeen. I think it was states. Fifteen states could change the voting laws. They had a clear it with the voting rights division of the civil rights division. So that they wouldn't be taking away rights. So they repealed this pre-clearance and within a year, ten states. Made it much harder to vote some of them North Carolina. The legislators were actually caught saying to each other. Let's make it harder for African Americans to vote and they particularly aimed as disenfranchisement at people of color African American Hispanic Asian Pacific islander at college students. They made it much aren't devoted college. And at poor people in general and the goal was not. They said, oh, there's a lot of voter fraud. They can't find any hardly any. But what they did do is take away people's rights. So what we wanna do point one is undo the damage in Shelby and do it across the country, not just in the fifteen states, but any state that is going to change its voting laws in a significant way. It has to be pre cleared if there's any sign that it might be discriminatory. Second thing we want to do is have automatic registration. There are fifty million people in America, not registered. Now. That's a disgrace automatic registration is very simple. It says whenever you touch any level of government, not just federal. But if you touch, Medicaid, if you touch the department of motor vehicles, you are automats registered, and that will.
"chief justice" Discussed on First Mondays
"And it turns out there are no rules of ethics that govern supreme court justices. Which is a crazy thing I've known this. But it's just every time. Ended of this. You know, I just I'm like why are they not make some rules? Come on. Yeah. It's it's terribly troubling. Actually that that the supreme court justices have sort of accepted themselves from from these rules. There is a a long standing I think it was a a statement by chief Justice Rehnquist that was later adopted by chief Justice Roberts related to recusals policies. It was the only statement about some sort of ethical guidance that they would follow on recusals in sort of a discretionary capacity. But but but that's really it on. It's it's yeah. It's surprising. I think yes. In relation to some of those themes though, we saw the chief justices urine report. That's another thing that always look for debris end of the counter year, usually re really releases them on the night of early evening. New Year's Eve, and in this one in particular. Chief Justice Roberts talked a bit about the recent working group that has been looking into questions about accountability for harassment and misconduct by employee's against involving employees in the federal judiciary by judges and other employees in the judiciary. Would you? What did you think of that? So I was glad that the chief. Once again discuss this issue in the urine report, of course, he had done. So as well in the previous year, I think partially in response to a request to do. So by this group known as law clerks for workplace accountability and the chief Justice again in this year's report noted that while at least our understanding of misconduct and harassment in the judiciary meant that the judiciary incidents of that behavior was less than perhaps in other employment settings it had not in any way received a clean Bill of health. And that there were. Still more to do to ensure that employees had a safe and welcoming workplace in the federal court. So I was glad that he again referred to this issue and sounded this theme because I've much agree that there still is work to be done. Even though the workplace group has largely kind of ramped up, and he said that that that at least some part of some group would stay in place for another year. I believe to the the working group to oversee some some changes, which seems very needed. So I also saw some rumblings that maybe the new democratic majority in the house would be interested in taking up some type of. Sort of taking up the mantle on some of these issues. I don't I don't know what that will look like, but but something from the House Judiciary committee or or or somewhere. I hope that's just get a on. This can you just get out of your custody Cortez just to look into this. Cleo, democratic senators also signalled their support for this. So you know, that was also encouraging. All right. So there's one other piece of news noted that has a tenuous supreme court hook. But I'm gonna let you talk about it. Because I know you want to you there's so much Legal News. I know you wanna talk about and I try to sort of keep you to this record hooks. But this one this one is close enough. I think this piece of news. I saw well why don't you tell us what it is? And we'll talk about the hook issue in a second. 'cause it's funny. So after Kate, and I recorded the last episode judge Rian O'Connor in a district judge in Texas released his ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and he. Invalidated a provision of the Affordable Care Act at the supreme court had a pal namely, the minimum coverage provisioned that the Republican congress has zeroed out the penalty for so it's a requirement to get something or pay nothing. If you don't and he said that because that provision was now invalid the rest of the Affordable Care Act was invalid as well. That is this provision wasn't several from any other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including the Medicaid expansion. And I think for many people importantly the guarantee issue and community rating provisions that require.
"chief justice" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"The instincts of John Roberts who rose in Washington as he served Republican administrations have always rested with the right wing. But now he's much more in a position to be torn between his ideological instincts in his very real institutional concerns about the third branch in particular about the supreme court. Hi, and welcome back to amicus slates podcast about the supreme court and the law and the rule of law and the rule of law and the Trump era I'm with week. I covered those things for slate. And hey, it's twenty nineteen and the government is partially shut down. But the courts remain open actually, with the exception of the immigration courts, which have already delayed most of their hearings. Ironically, contributing to the already massive backlog of delayed immigration cases, which is the thing. We're fighting about immigration now, we're seeing cases that are going to be rescheduled. In the thousands new cases will be delayed twenty nineteen your couple days in and your name already is Ernie twenty nineteen also opened with chief Justice John Roberts and his annual New Year's state of the judiciary report it always sneaks in with the new year. This year was almost more notable for what it did not say it certainly did not talk about. Donald Trump, and it did not explicitly say a lot about the thing it addressed which was sexual misconduct in the article three courts. Indeed chief Justice Roberts who is determined to keep the court out of the public eye in these roiling and very dramatic months post. Brad Kavanagh is actually quickly becoming the most interesting member of the high court for what he doesn't say. So we've now seen him in the last few months with a series of votes to Batta way big cases intervening in a sealed secret conflict that's coming out of the molar probe. Who is John Roberts? Is he evolving into a centrist is he taking on Trump himself in his own twinkly eyed, understated way, how did this balls and strikes guy? Become the most intriguing understated man in America next to. To the other intriguing. Understated men in America, we like to call Bob Muller. Nobody has watched John Roberts more carefully in recent years than Joan biskupic. She covers the court for CNN and her new book the chief the life and turbulent times of chief Justice John Roberts will come out. This March Joan has been covering the supreme court for over twenty five years. She's written seminal biographies of several of the justices. She is a legal analyst for CNN and one of my dear friends and colleagues at the supreme court. Joan welcome back to advocate. Thank you. Dahlia so Joan as I just noted in his state of the judiciary speech on Monday. The chief Justice quite determined -ly addressed and didn't address reports of sexual harassment in the judiciary. This is an issue. He raised really forcefully in his speech last year. He seems to be accepting the findings of working group that he convened to analyze the. Problem. He says, I agree. There's more than one or two I selected incidents. I agree. This is not just about law clerks. But then he seems to kind of downplay the larger problem in the judiciary you reported on this extensively last year the number of complaints about judges. And in fact, he said some of the worst conduct was quote, incivility or disrespect. He did ask the working group to stay on task to keep looking at this. But is he affect just telling us all it's time to move on. You picked up on exactly what I picked up on Dalia the idea that he minimized the kind of harassment or employee abuse that takes place in the nation's courthouses using the word incivility disrespect does tend to minimize what might be going on. So I thought that was notable. I also thought it was notable that he stressed how what happens in the federal judiciary compares. Favorably to other government and private sector workplaces..
"chief justice" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Small and as simple as a relationship is between a volunteer decline of meals on wheels. It's really some impact. I never thought that five minutes could make so much difference than license to drop off a warm meal and give them more than you. Expect volunteer at America. Let's do lunch dot org. That's america. Let's do lunch dot org. Brought to you by meals on Wheels America and the Ad Council. Title. You're listening to Bloomberg opinion on Bloomberg radio. I'm June Grosso. The democratic house isn't the only branch of the US government headed for a clash with President Donald Trump. The supreme court is to tell us. Why is Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor and a columnist from Bloomberg opinion. It was a bit out of character for the chief Justice to rebut one of Trump's many criticisms of the courts and judges what might have led him to finally react Trump. I think she fed up, and I think that's because he had a certain hope or expectation from Trump, and that was that if Trump survived the midterm elections, which he did do, and if the supreme court decided in a way that was somewhat accommodating to the president which they've done the Trump would stop bashing the judiciary and stop reading the rule of law and with his tweet about Obama judges Trump's show that he's not gonna stop. He he sees criticize me to share village intimate just part of the political game. And I think the chief Justice decided it was time to start doing something about it. You write that two years is actually a pretty short unit of time in judicial time. And so tell us about the long-term give and take between the executive branch and the judiciary. You know in every administration. There are some pushing Paul between the judiciary and the executive branch, and especially a president who's trying to do both things. He's going to get some forms of pushback, you know, President Obama got some forms of push back on DACA. And he got pushback certain ways on the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, usually sort of follow a kind of predictable slow patterned and one of the key points is that a president winning more than he's losing from the court is likely not to criticize the court so much so President Obama criticized citizens United famously in his state of the union address. But he then ease up on his criticisms of the court. Donald Trump is not easing up. And I think, you know, the interesting thing is for the chief Justice to respond after two years is not as long as it sounds. It's based on the recognition by the chiefs. That this is a slow process. The Justice department has tried to appeal for cases in recent months directly to the supreme court jumping over the circuit courts. Does that mean that the administration thinks the court is their friend after held is Muslim travel ban. There are two possible interpretations one is what you suggest that the department of Justice thinks it's got the edge. And I think chief Justice Roberts will not like that. He's not gonna want anyone to think that administration thinks that they have him in their pocket. The second interpretation is that? The Justice department is getting a little bit Trumpian. That is they want headlines they wanna be able to tell the presidential in particular. We're not going to usual process for the crisis. We're setting it right to the supreme court. And it may be that the DOJ feels that they have to satisfy the president who obviously indirectly their boss. If that's the case, it's bad strategy in front of the supreme court, but it may be what solicitor general thinks he needs to do in order to please. President Trump has appointed to supreme court justices and Brett Kavanagh was seen by some critics as a pick to cement rulings in favor of Trump. So on the surface. It would seem to make the court more kindly disposed to Trump. I think certainly must have made a court more, positively disposed towards Trump, and that's why in a normal world. You wouldn't see the president beating up on the Sherry when he knows that the chief Justice doesn't like it very much. Chief Justice Roberts is now the swing vote on this court. It's kind of shocking because he's a conservative judge. But he's the swing voter. Now, the Justice Kennedy has been replaced by Greg capital. So what that means is that an ordinary president would be very nice to the supreme court would not go round angering that you've done this. Because he knows that he needs his votes to get important things beside it. But that's you know, President Trump does not play according to the traditional rules. Do you expect chief Justice Roberts then to rule against the expansion of executive power or expansive executive power in future cases? I think that the chief Justice is going to be very very attuned to the possibility of ruling against executive power. Now, this is the most skilled dock trial lawyer on the current supreme court. He's a brilliant doctrinal list. He knows how to play the little tiny details. You know, the details. And so I don't think he's going to issue an opinion that would radically different on its surface from what he would have done otherwise. But as a general matter he's going to be looking for ways to slap down the president and pretty much. The only tool that the chief doesn't really has is supreme court decision making. So I wouldn't pay that chief Justice is going to be much more skeptical of executive power during the Trump ears than he might. Otherwise have been I loved your analysis of the travel ban case, do you think the chief Justice regrets that decision? I really hope he does. The chief Justice. He's a student of the history of the supreme court. Does a lot about it? He cares. A lot about it. And in the dissent written by Justice soda minority. Travel ban case doesn't sorta specifically invoked the core Moncey decision. That's the Japanese and Kearney case. But a lot of people think the worst decision by the modern supreme court chief Justice, he heard her loud and clear, and he reached out his opinion to say this is not quarterback sue, but you know, his hero and my hero. Justice Felix Frankfurter. Majority of the Komatsu case, and I turned out to be a blade on his historical recreation, and I think. That may have made a similar error primarily because he thought it would come down the president and it didn't. Instead, the president just saw criticizing in his favor as a sign of the weakness of accord. No, what do you think? The chief Justice was sending some kind of a message when he was the only conservative Justice not to attend the federalists society's annual convention. Yes. I think he probably thought and is correct thought, but if five justices of the nine showed up at that that conference, and it goes five justices are identified the conservative bloc. And there's a picture of him thing there that it would really make it look like the federalist society control the court in an era where the federalist society has stated enormous role in sending judicial nominees to the Trump administration, particularly strong worry. That's exactly the sort of optics problem that the chief. His very very much a jail are any of the other justices on the court, particularly the conservative justices as concerned about the view of the court and the integrity of the court as the chief is. He's the most concerned one reason is he is of course, the chief. And he clerked for William Rehnquist to went onto also the chief Justice Rehnquist clerked for Justice Robert Jackson who desperately wanted to achieve Justice in this long line of Justice. Is there who care about running the thing? And I think to the chief Justice being chief Justice means he has to take responsibility, by the way, not just for the supreme court for the entire federal judiciary. I think the other reason is the court bears his name, you know, people were heard of this as A Roberts court. So his personal legacy is tied up in the legacy legacy at the court. Thanks, Noah, that's Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor and a columnist for Bloomberg opinion, coming up on Bloomberg opinion, adequate.
"chief justice" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"It's an incredibly telling statement, you know, it's clear that this president is not a big believer in an independent judiciary or an independent Justice department. What he really wants is additional groups additional allies that will help him carry out, his political and his personal agenda. We should have been stunned when we heard the statement a year ago, but he also made it clear during the campaign that he'd you'd the Justice department as a way of locking up his political opponents Trump has been if anything consistent on this topic. Unfortunately, it's kind of consistency that we would be a lot better off without and need to start taking seriously, Jill wine, banks as we mentioned Justice. Chief Justice John Roberts did do this one other time when President Obama made a comment during his state of the union. Let's listen to to to what that was all about. With all due deference to separation of powers last week. The supreme court reversed a century of law that I believe we'll open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations to spend without limit in our luck. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or worse by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a Bill that helps correct? Some of these problems such eulogise put this into context that was a president criticizing the supreme court. It was done in a very different flavor. It didn't sound personal. But chief Justice John Roberts. Didn't like that. Either. How our president's supposed to push back against another branch of government. If that branch happens to be the court. Well, first of all happy thanksgiving to you and all of your viewers. Secondly, it is a very different context that President Obama spoke to he was not criticizing the court or any member of it. He was criticizing a decision that had a very big political impact. And was suggesting that legislation was necessary to change that that seems to me inappropriate way for a president to deal with the supreme court decision that he thinks needs to be chained to urge legislation not to personally attack and undermine the credibility of the court. Which is what President Trump is doing, and which is completely unprecedented and wrong. And this isn't the first time he's done it. He did it with the case involving his first travel ban. He is done it in another case where it was involving his own lawsuit about his university. And so he has a history. Of doing this, and Jonathan and Joyce are both absolutely correct. As to how dangerous this is for democracy. And how important the separation of powers isn't. If you heard the first line of what President Obama said he said with all due respect to the separation of powers. That's something that Donald Trump does not understand nor does he understand an independent department of Justice and the importance of that when he says prosecute an opponent. That is exactly the wrong thing to do. He can say investigate and see if there's a crime, but he can't say just go and prosecute. That's is really something that is a threat to democracy. It is what an authoritarian dictator does. And I don't wanna live in a country where we allow that to happen. Well, said thank you to the three of you. Stay with us for this break coming up. What we now know about the answers President Trump's admitted to special counsel Robert Muller's investigation. Why President Trump is thanking Saudi Arabia on the day before thanksgiving to the chagrin? Of even some Republican senators..
"chief justice" Discussed on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
"I today President Trump received a rare public rebuke. From an unlikely source the chief Justice of the supreme court John Roberts was responding to Trump's attacks on a federal judge for temporarily blocking his asylum ban. Well, you go to the ninth circuit. And it's a disgrace that I'm gonna put it in a major complaint because you cannot win if you're us a case in the ninth circuit, this was an Obama judge, and I'll tell you what it's not gonna happen like this anymore. Chief Justice Roberts has remained silent as President Trump has insulted the judiciary time and time again. But today Roberts broke his silence and released this statement, quote, we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges Bush judges or Clinton judges what we have is an extraordinary group of people of a group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them that independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for President Trump took to Twitter to escalate his war of words tweeting. Sorry, chief Justice John Roberts. But you do indeed have Obama judges Roberts has only rebuked president one. In other time in two thousand and ten Roberts called President Obama state of the union speech, very troubling. After Obama criticized supreme court decision in that speech. Republicans who support Trump seems to have forgotten. This Senator Chuck Grassley tweeted chief Justice Roberts, rebuked Trump for a comment. He made about a judge's decision on a Silom. I don't recall the chief attacking Obama when that press rebuked Alito during a state of the union again, hey did joining us now, Jill wide, banks. Former assistant Watergate special prosecutor Joyce Vance. Former federal prosecutor and a professor at the university of Alabama school of law. They're both MSNBC legal contributors Jonathan alter is a columnist for the Daily Beast and an MSNBC political analyst, thanks to all of you for being here. Jonathan let me just start with you. It's a big deal that John Roberts said this continuing considering the John Roberts doesn't say. A lot of things quite often. Particularly as it comes to critic being critical of the president the idea that John Roberts, criticized the president or suggested that the president's criticism of judges is misguided seems important to me extraordinarily important for one branch to stand up against another branch. This is what the founders envisioned were for the branches to check each other. And Roberts was doing that standing up for the rule of law. Standing up for an independent judiciary. The big question is whether there will be more of this to come and whether in some of his decisions, whether he will side with the moderates on the court instead of just going right down the line with conservatives when say questions of whether a president can be subpoenaed and other things that relate to the investigation of Trump when they come before this court, which they're likely to do in the next couple. Years Roberts is no longer quite as predictable vote as he was before. Because he believes that this president is assaulting the fundamental ideas, which this country was founded, and where the chief Justice of the supreme court comes to that conclusion. You bet that's a big deal. Joyce let me ask you about this because the president in his mind sees judges as belonging to presidents or aligned with presidents. And of course, as we've discussed in the last few days, he sees the department of Justice, which is part of his branch part of the executive branch as being his personal department of Justice in November this month. This is what Trump said about the judiciary. Let's listen. You know, the saddest thing is that because of the president of the United States. I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice department, and I'm not supposed to be involved with the FBI. I'm not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I'm very frustrated, but I look at what's happening with the Justice department. Why aren't they going after Hillary Clinton with her emails with her the dossier kind of money? Sorry joyce. I was mistaken that was from a year ago. The president said that but this line stands out where he said, I'm not supposed to be doing the kinds of things. I would love to be doing. And I'm very frustrated by it. I'm sorry. He's frustrated by it. But that's kind of a serious concern on the part of the president that we should all be very worried about..
"chief justice" Discussed on The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer
"Let's turn back to the breaking news. This extraordinary war of words between President Trump and chief Justice John Roberts. Joining us now is democratic congressman John Deere Mendy of California. He's a member of the Armed Services Committee, congressman happy thanksgiving. Thanks so much for joining us. Let's begin first with your reaction to what is just an extraordinary Akam. From chief Justice John Roberts, issuing this statement criticizing President Trump's attacks on the federal court system. How how stunning is this? Do you think? Well, I think extraordinarily important optimally all of these questions are gonna wind up at the supreme court and the chief Justice is laying down. I think a very very important marker here, and he is defending the judiciary. The third branch of government. He says, basically, we are independent. We'll take the facts as they come. We'll measure them against both the law and the constitution. And Mr President notwithstanding. Whatever you say we are here, and ultimately, we will be the deciders of whether a laws appropriate. Whether an interpretation by the president or any other thing is appropriate. It's very very important. Equally important is the way in which the president is once again seeing himself as a dictator as above the law that it's all about him. It's all about his power that he can dictate whatever he whatever he wants. He's gonna find out something quite different both because the Democrats will have the. Congress and we'll do investigations and the court just said we're independent Mr President. And the president is firing back on Twitter saying no chief Justice Roberts, there are Obama judges. And so on do you think this this back and forth is degrading trust in the court system? The sense of an independent judicial system. Well, certainly not at the at the judge level. I can just imagine. Judges all around the nation are going. Okay. Tell taking it all in. And when the cases appeared before them, they'll be looking at them in the appropriate way with independence, and with scrutiny, and certainly one should assume that the supreme court is doing the same thing. It's not good to get in a fight with the judge any lawyer. They spend before a judge. We'll tell you don't get in a fight with the judge. You're gonna lose the president is not in a strong position in a fight with the judge. But so I said he seems to think he's the imperial one. And can do whatever he wants to do. I think he's going to find out something quite different as the days go by and how important is that? How rare is it have this? The chief Justice of the supreme court speak out in this direct rebuke of the president typically, you You know. know, the court system will weigh in on the president's actions in a court decision and you'll read about it in a court decision. This was a statement issued by the chief Justice outside of any kind of court decision. Well, that's certainly true. But also, you gave a brief clip of an earlier speech that the chief Justice said, and he's been quite clear over the last year or two years. Maybe even before that that the judge the judges and the courts are independent they have a task under the constitution. And that at least he as the chief judge in the United States intense that that task of interpreting the constitution the laws against the constitution as well. This actions by the president or others. He's laid down that very very clear, and he's already shown his independence from the Republican effort to try to squelch the Affordable Care Act. So. My advice to the president is you've picked the wrong fight here. And let's turn to the Russia probe the president is legal team. They submitted is written responses to questions from the special counsel's office of the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani is not committing at least at this point to answering follow ups, they anticipate that there will be follow up questions. What if the special counsel comes back with follow up questions and the president refuses to answer should that lead to another confrontation perhaps impeachment hearings? Yeah. Well, there's certainly be steps before that. And that's probably going to be a subpoena..
"chief justice" Discussed on Swimming Upstream Radio Show
"chief justice" Discussed on WDRC
"Is chief justice of the state supreme court we will not properly vetted him because of his sexual orientation because rather than vetting him on his judicial experience rather than vetting him on his qualifications which got him to this point he will be selected not because of those qualifications he will be selected because of his sexual orientation rather than his sexual orientation of being openly gay being a footnote it'll be if you will pose andrew mcdonald it'll be because you're a homophobe and that's why you have to support andrew mcdonald and it shouldn't be that way at all that should be solely on his qualifications we live by the way in a day and age where if you take this kind of a position you have to qualify what you say so let me qualify right from the beginning that i am not homophobe i am not one who opposes gay marriage i am one who believes in individual sexual orientation as their sexual orientation and you shouldn't discriminate against an individual because of his or her sexual orientation i have many friends some of what happened to be gay and i'm sure there are other people out there who would say i have many friends a people who might be listening to this program who are gay who might be saying i have many friends summer who are hetero sexual and that is always bug me because i don't care about a person's sexual orientation whatever your sexual orientation is gay marriage good if if the book it it's the law though i don't have a problem with any of that but i do have a problem particularly in what is going to be a politicallycharged year of trying to determine whether a person has qualified for their job and not being able to take into account those qualifications because of an individual sexual orientation to the point and this is where the republicans are in a box and governor malloy knows it if you oppose andrew mcdonald's nomination if you vote against andrew mcdonald's nomination as some well some republicans will i don't see a democrat out there who's going to vote against andrew mcdonald if you vote against andrew macdonald it'll be because you're are anti gay and that's wrong hong but this is the atmosphere we live in this.
"chief justice" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"You don't agree with you completely robert strategy i do the fingerprints of justice bryer on the procurement self hamon dahlia both you'll free to argue with me i think this was a combination of the chief justice is a political hunting uh and sort of crafty ability to maintain the court supremacy often without deciding some big issues uh and a combination of doubt injustice briers ability to carry on justice o'connor's a baby flitting tradition giving both sides pieces of what they want leaving the broader issues to be resolved for another day uh and then disappearing for a couple of months and hoping everything get sorted out we are going to stop for a moment and hear about the other terrific spencer on this week's show analysts is brought to you this week by net flakes presenting the original documentary nobody speak trials of the free press when a celebrity sex tape is leaked a highstakes legal battle between gawker and former professional wrestler hulk hogan leads to the dossier sites ruin nobody speak explores the shadowy world of billionaires manipulating free speech and ultimately reveals what power and money can do in undermining our democracy now streaming only on netflix so i want to turn now to what i see is a big theme of what's coming at the supreme court and we've talked about this a lot on this show particularly with respect to neil gorsuch uh coming onto the court ah and that is just this fundamental collision that is.