36 Burst results for "Chief Justice John Roberts"
Fresh update on "chief justice john roberts" discussed on Chris Salcedo
"You want to go watch the major League Baseball. Folks who Are all for cheating at the ballot box. And have launched economic warfare on our nation. And our citizens. That's permissible. But if you want to gather The same number of people and worship God, We're not going to allow that. State of California to that. All using the fear of China virus, saying Well, when you're praising God, you're going to spread the China virus more, which is not scientific, but it does reveal their anti God. Aunty First Amendment predisposition. What I mean by that is, you know socialists. Like Chief Justice John Roberts. Anyway. Scully's continued. You can see all of these young Children who are next to each other six inches apart. Many without masks, by the way. Does that follow your guidance that you've issued? No. Well, then why would the Biden administration not go and stop this? I think one of the reasons to President Biden and Vice President Harris won't even go see this for themselves. That's why I keep urging strongly that they go to the border. I'd love for you all to go to the border to see this. So you can at least give recommendations. They're violating every guidance that Americans are required to follow. Yes, but they are special. You see, Colin Alright and Marc Veasey and Eddie Bernice Johnson. Want all of you folks who voted for them, but know that you're inferior to every illegal alien. Illegal aliens. By definition, they don't follow the law of the follow immigration law. They are the fire. Follow all these rules and edicts that have made your life a living hell over the last year. They don't have to, because they're special. What your job is, as an American is to be dutiful to the government. Do whatever the hell it tells you. They don't have to. They don't follow the rules you do. And then you just got to go. If you're lucky enough to have a job, you gotta go to work. Bust your ass have more money taken out of your paycheck to pay for all the illegal aliens who are more special than you. But by all means you folks in the 32nd continue to vote for Colin. Already. You dummies! All of you folks in the 30th. Keep on voting for Eddie Bernice Johnson. And you're voting for a group of politicians who put foreigners ahead of you. And you say all of these foreign nationals are better than you. You just do what we tell you, Monkey. That's what they're telling you. 800 to 88 w B a P 800 to 889227 Next. It's Jim Jordan's turn. He wants some information from patchy by the way, you'll see whether Fauci answers this direct question. Hey, when do we get our liberties back? Then how does all this tie To a story right here in Texas in Highland Park. Back in a minute. The Crystal Saito's show.
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
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
California resumes in-person church services after Supreme Court ruling
"Partial victory for california churches fighting the state's covid nineteen restrictions. Fox's sean land joe's in washington with more a new supreme court ruling. A splintered supreme court has granted partial relief to california churches that were fighting the state to resume indoor worship services. Some churches are allowed to reopen indoor services. Thanks to the ruling. Chief justice john roberts voted with majority writing the capacity limits quote appears to reflect on an expertise or discretion but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake. The order does not lift a twenty five percent capacity restrictions nor allow for singing and chanting measures churches. Were also seeking the high court's three liberal justices dissented
Roberts will not preside over impeachment trial
"Court Chief Justice John Roberts will not preside over the trial. Instead, that job will fall to Senate President pro tempore A Patrick Leahy. Lead impeachment manager Congress and Jamie Raskin, who read the article in the Senate chamber, says former president Trump betrayed the trust of the American people. He threatened the integrity of the Democratic system interfered with the peaceful transition of power and imperil coequal branch of government. Arguments are set to begin the week of February. 8th. Senator Leahy says he will take a special oath to do impartial justice
Biden to Sign Buy American Order
"President Joe Biden will sign an executive order today that encourages federal companies to buy American. He also just signed an order that lifts the ban on transgender people serving in the military doing enabling all qualified American conservative country in uniform. The order had been put into place by former President Donald Trump, who's facing another impeachment trial in the Senate. The House will send the article of impeachment today, but the trial will not begin until February. 9th when it does, a source tells ABC News. The president pro TEM of the Senate, Vermont's Patrick Leahy, will preside, not Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.
Facing crush of crises, Biden will take helm as president
"Despite security warnings Joe Biden declined to move today's swearing in ceremony indoors and instead will address so small socially distant crowd on the west front of the capitol surrounded by more security than ever the day begins with morning mass by did making it bipartisan with Republican leaders Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy along with Democrats Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi once at the capitol Biden will be administered the oath of office by Chief Justice John Roberts Kamilla Harris will be sworn in by justice Sonia Sotomayor your bite in speech will center on the theme of America United after former presidents Bill Clinton George W. bush and Barack Obama will help the to lay a wreath at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier because of the pandemic much of this year's inaugural parade as well as the night time balls will be slim down or virtual with Biden taking part in a televised concert was a big name performers I'm Julie Walker
Trump pardons Steve Bannon and commutes sentences
"Kamila Harris will first be sworn in as vice president by Justice Sonia Sotomayor shortly before 11 A.m. Joe Biden will then be sworn in as president by Chief Justice John Roberts and a last minute move from the White House. President Trump is giving pardons to 73 people and commuting sentences for 70 others. List includes former top adviser Steve Bannon, accused of scheme of raising money to build a border wall. It also includes rapper's Little Wayne and Kodak Black, both charged with weapons violations and former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick serving a 28 year sentence on corruption charges. One prominent name left off the list. Joe Exotic of Tiger King
Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling
"A lot for being with us on this day after Thanksgiving. It was right before Thanksgiving late Wednesday. When the U. S Supreme Court The majority said, even in a pandemic You can't put away the Constitution. Now. In New York governor Cuomo says that he issued these restrictions on places of worship. Based on science. And safety. And so this is a fascinating ruling. In many regards number one. It's a big plus for religious freedom. Number two. It was just this past summer. That the Supreme Court ruled basically the opposite. In a case and there's some other cases that are being considered. I believe some cases California, New Jersey, Louisiana, So this is all about the Supreme Court blocking New York's governor from enforcing 10 and 25 person occupancy limits On religious institutions. Courts, the restrictions would violate religious freedom. And are not neutral because they single out houses of worship or especially harsh treatment. Or said there's no evidence that the organizations that brought the lawsuit have contributed to the spread of cove in 19. And this was one of those 54 decisions. With Chief Justice John Roberts. Going along with Justices Stephen Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. And in their descent. Chief justice. Roberts said he saw no need to take this action because New York had revised the designations of the affected areas. Governor Cuomo essentially Said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did rule on it and also in the sending opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this unlike religious services, Bike repair shops and liquor stores generally don't feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more. She went on to say justices of this court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials. About the environments in which a contagious virus now infecting a million Americans each week. Spreads most easily. Those are the words and the dissenting opinion from Justice. Sonia Sotomayor, your Down the majority, and this may be the new power five and this is one of the key developments out of this ruling. A new power five on the Supreme Court. Barrett Gorsuch. Thomas Alito. And Cavanaugh. Three of whom, of course, were Appointed By President Donald Trump in the Majority opinion. Justice, Gorsuch said this, he noted that Governor Cuomo had designated among others, the hardware stores acupuncturists. Liquor stores and bicycle repair shops as essential businesses. That were not subject to the most strict limits. Like these places of worship work. Gorsuch said. We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well. When we do So it Zbig deal for the Supreme Court. It's a big deal for I mean, let's face it all those evangelicals that voted for President Trump. They've got to be doing a victory lap today, right? Maybe you are a swell 51283605 90. If you'd like to be a part of the program here, you give us a call or send us a text on K. O. B. J. It is because Amy Barrett just got on the court. Right, So it's really The first significant indication Of a rightward tilt to the court. And I mentioned this and may and July Supreme Court rejected challenges. Virus related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada. At that time, the Chief Justice John Roberts, Joined the courts Democratic appointees, which of course, then included Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And those rulings they stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic. So The New York Times, Right said. This is just One example of how profoundly President Trump Has transformed the Supreme Court. This New York Times P, says Justice Bharat Help the chief justice of body blow. Casting the decisive vote in a 5 to 4 ruling. On religious services in New York. And New York Times says this is most certainly a taste. Of things to come. About this 51283605 90 here on Caleb E. J. It is an interesting question, right? In the summer time. Even the Supreme Court said, Look You may not like it when these local officials are trying to close the church. But You're dealing with health and safety issue. And there are rights. Given to local officials in the event. Of health and safety issues. Well, not in this case, the governor there in New York, Andrew Cuomo. He criticized the Supreme Court. Or overturning their restrictions. He said It was Morrell Astrit Ivo of the Supreme Court than anything else. He called the ruling irrelevant. Said it would have any practical impact because restrictions Are not in place and had been dialed back well. You know, it's interesting that even in the Opinion. That was written by Sonia Sotomayor, right? When she was talking about The court plays a deadly game and second guessing the expert judgment of health official. Let's stop right there.
High court blocks New York virus limits on houses of worship
"The Supreme Court blocks New York's coronavirus limits on houses of worship. Correspondent Mike Can't that explains the high court is far in New York from enforcing limits on attendance at churches and synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus. The justices voted 54 with new Justice Amy Cockney parrot in the majority. The three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. The vote was his shift for the court earlier this year when Pierre it's liberal predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was on the court. The justices voted 54 to leave in place pandemic related capacity restrictions. Affecting churches in California and Nevada.
Supreme Court rejects COVID limits on New York houses of worship
"The. Us supreme court ruled five to four wednesday evening to struck down an order by new york governor. Andrew cuomo that placed restrictions on the number of people at religious gatherings justice. Amy barrett on the bench for a month. Was the key swing vote. In this case barrett sided with four other conservatives. The majority wrote in part quote even in a pandemic. The constitution cannot be put away and forgotten chief justice john roberts sided with the liberal wing writing. It was not the courts. Place quote to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is necessary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic. Twenty five other states have similar cases before various courts across the
High court blocks New York virus limits on houses of worship
"Conservative majority on the Supreme Court. She is showing its influence for the first time since Amy Cockney Barrel took her seat on the bench. The high court has blocked New York's coronavirus limits on houses of worship. The high court is far in New York from enforcing limits on attendant said church, his hand synagogues in areas designated as hard hit by the virus. The justices voted 54 with new Justice Amy Cockney parrot in the majority. The three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. The vote was his shift for the court earlier this year when parrots liberal predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on the court. The justices voted 54 To leave in place. Pandemic related capacity restrictions affecting churches in California and Nevada, Mike Hemp in
Supreme Court Rules New York Cannot Limit Attendance At Houses Of Worship Due To COVID-19
"Some religious groups in new york are celebrating last night's rare late night. Supreme court decision blocking an executive order from new york governor andrew cuomo that restricted attendance at religious services in their neighborhoods because the pandemic ultra orthodox jewish organizations in brooklyn and queens and the roman catholic diocese of brooklyn claim. That cuomo single them out. The state pointed to the recent spike in covid nineteen cases. And then there was that alarming ultra orthodox wedding last week. The two hundreds not wearing masks. The court's decision was five. Four with its newest justice emmy coney barrett considered the fifth vote. Emily brazilan staff writer at new york times magazine and fellow at the yale law. School is here emily. Thank you for taking a break from your thanksgiving thanks. You are welcome. Glad to be here. And we should say the to litigants the ultra orthodox jewish groups and the catholic diocese were already not subject to these restrictions. Because they've been lifted there's a color system for restrictions in new york and Cova cases had obey abated in their area. But what was the argument from the court in blocking even targeted restrictions. Well the corpus arguing that new york hadn't shown that less strict measures would be enough to protect public health. Which is a pretty cursory kind of way of thinking about this. You can see the concur. Ince's by justice gorsuch as justice cavanaugh. That some of the conservative judges didn't like the idea that essential businesses which were permitted to open a new york included stores but did not include houses of worship. And i think the odd thing about the majority's analysis here is what it's comparing so the majority behaves as if people going to stores are the same as people congregating in a house of worship even though it's very unusual in store for lots of people to be sitting together or certainly singing or chanting together for a long time. That's all in a church or synagogue or a mosque and we know that that is a riskier activity. So there was no discussion of the science or scientific public health considerations in the majority's opinion. And what about chief. Justice john robertson. The three liberal justices dissenting. What did they say. Well chief justice. John roberts says there's no reason for us to decide this right now for the reason that you gave earlier new york had a lift these restrictions for now because the krona virus spread is not as bad in the city so these restrictions said that in the red zone the highest risk new york. You could have ten people in a house of worship in the orange zone. You could have twenty-five people but the catholic archdiocese in the docks synagogues that have sued. They no longer are subject to those restrictions and so she's jeff roberts was making a kind of traditional conservative judicial modesty Moved here in which he said. Look if they're subject to these restrictions again maybe they will be proved to be unduly harsh but at the moment. They're not so we don't need to step in here. And this is a classic example of a judge saying you know what. Let's leave this in the hands of public. Health officials not have judges step in to make these decisions. Unless it's absolutely necessary will be clear. What does it mean. I mean be clear. Only because i'm not able to figure this out. Temporary decision made on an emergency basis by the way when ruth bader ginsburg was on the court roberts sided with the liberals and the decision was in favor of restrictions that was when california had restrictions in place. So obviously there's been a tilt here but what does this mean for other states for new york when it comes to restrictions on houses of worship in the pandemic y- i'm kind of scratching my head about that too. I mean it looks like what the court is saying. Is that if you have businesses open you have to treat churches and other houses of worship just like those businesses but without paying attention to the greater risk that the church that you know religious service can entail and that's very strange to me because it seems so at odds with the science and what we know about the spread of coronavirus. And so you're right. This is a decision. That's a temporary restraining. Order against new york. The merits the kind of larger case is still to be thrashed out the lower courts and so one hopes going forward that there will be more attention to these apples to apples. Comparisons and figuring out what the state really needs to do to protect public health and mall many have seen the video from the acidic wedding in brooklyn this month. Hundreds packing a synagogue. No-one wearing masks mayor. Bill de blasio said or organizers will find fifteen thousand for violating restrictions. And so we're keeping an eye on that to see what happens. There might be any kind of consideration of
Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on some New York houses of worship
"The Supreme Court is temporarily barred New York from enforcing certain attendance limits that houses of worship in areas designated as hard hit by the coronavirus. Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish synagogues sued to get around those restrictions. The Supreme Court justices split 5 to 4 with new Justice Amy Cockney Barrett in the majority. The court's three liberal justices and chief Justice John Roberts dissented in that
High court seems likely to leave to health care law in place
"Another Republican bid to strike down the entire affordable Care Act appears likely to fail again in the supreme court's third big case on the law known as obamacare Republicans argued the court should find the laws mandate for obtaining health insurance unconstitutional and wipe out the whole thing to conservative justices were among those appearing unwilling with Chief Justice John Roberts noting Congress zeroed out the penalty for failing to obtain health care Congress left the rest of the law intact trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh says recent court decisions suggest the proper remedy is to cut out the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place a move the courts three liberal justices would presumably join Sager mag ani Washington
Trump’s justice department to argue for end of Obamacare at supreme court
"Supreme Supreme Court Court is is considering considering the the possible possible repeal repeal of of the the affordable affordable care care act act or or Obama Obama care. care. The The key key issue issue involves involves whether whether mandating mandating insurance insurance is is constitutional, constitutional, since there's no longer a penalty for not buying it. Chief Justice John Roberts Questions California Solicitor General Michael Mangan on the Affordable Care act is someone who does not follow the mandate and purchase insurance violating the law. Not on our view, Your Honor. We think that this is a An operative provisioned and there is no legal command. If the court strikes down Obama care, it would end health insurance coverage for more than 20 Million Americans. Protections for people with pre existing conditions would also disappear. The landmark health care law is now 10 years old.
Much at stake as Supreme Court weighs future of 'Obamacare'
"The US Supreme Court is considering the possible repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a k A obamacare. The key issue in this case involves whether Mandating health insurance is constitutional, since there's no longer a penalty for not buying it after the so called individual mandate was repealed by Congress in 2017 Chief Justice John Roberts questioning California Solicitor General Michael Mangan, who is defending the law. Is someone who does not follow the mandate and purchase insurance violating the law. Not on our view, Your Honor. We think that this is a An operative provisioned and there is no legal command. It's the third time the 10 year old lies come before the nation's highest
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM
"Singing, leaving flowers and lighting candles. Chief Justice John Roberts morning Ginsberg's passing, saying in a statement. Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We of the Supreme Court have lost two cherished colleague President Trump calling Justice Ginsburg and amazing woman who led an amazing life. He's ordered flags lowered to half staff in tribute. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden reacting my heart goes out to all those who cared for her and care about her and Kia practice the highest American ideals as justice with just over six weeks until election Day. Will the president nominate a replacement before then? And will the Senate's take up confirmation? The answer to both questions appears to be yes, a statement from the Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, President Trump's nominee, will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate Chuck Schumer responding to that in a tweet, he said the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. Thanks is Kevin Corke. But as Fox's Chad program reports on Capitol Hill, it's always about the math. Here is the math in the United States. Senate 53 Senate Republicans 47 senators who caucus with the Democrats, so that means they can lose two senators. And already it appears that maybe if Lisa Murkowski Sticks to her word there down to 52. You could possibly lose three. If you were to have Vice President Mike Pence break the time, But you're right on the cusp. They're America is listening to Fox News. From the Fox News Podcasts network. The campaign with threadbare president has experienced a bump in recent polling as.
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030
"Mention that Chief Justice John Roberts who was not mentioned by Chucky issued a stinging rebuke rebuke saying that justice is no that criticism comes with the territory threatening statements from the highest levels of government a not only inappropriate the dangerous in addition hats off to professor Larry tribe professor Laurence tribe of Harvard Law School who is a a liberal icon within the legal community he wrote these remarks by that senator Schumer were inexcusable Chief Justice Roberts was right to call him on his comments I hope the senator whom I have long admired this is Larry tribe and consider a friend apologizes and takes back his implicit threat it's beneath him in his office so here we have Larry tribe a green and probably for the first time with Mitch McConnell it ended in agree with me for the first time McConnell reference the shooting at a baseball field I mean words have consequences and there are ninety people on both the far right and the far left this country there was that Google bird down in Florida who was driving around with the the truck with all the signs about how much she loved president trump who is threatening to bomb places and then Mitch McConnell refers to the shooting of Steve Scalise congressman Steve Scalise at a baseball practice three years ago on a on a June morning this is cut nineteen were up less than three years ago course.
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on KCRW
"Chaplain wearing black reciting the pledge of allegiance now the Chief Justice John Roberts it will yeah yeah centers please be seated if there is no objection the journal of proceedings of the trial are proved to date the deputy sergeant at arms will make the proclamation hear ye hear ye hear ye all persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment well the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trials trial of articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives against Donald John trump president of the United States the Majority Leader is recognized for information all college will take a break about two hours ago this is Mitch McConnell of Kentucky pursuant to the provisions of Senate resolution four eighty three the Senate has provided up to four hours of arguments by the parties equally divided on the question of whether or not it shall be in order to consider and debate under the impeachment roles any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents Mr manager Schiff are you a proponent or opponent Mr simple only are you a proponent or opponent thank you Mr Schiff you may proceed this is lead house impeachment manager Adam Schiff of California who has been making the case for impeachment all week opening his binder on this day where we will have four hours of debate over witnesses for begin the Mister Chief Justice the house managers will be reserving the balance of our time to respond to the argument of counsel for the president Mister Chief Justice senators for the house managers and counsel for the president I know I speak for my fellow managers as well as counsel for the president and thanking you for your careful attention to the arguments that we have made over the course of many long days today we were greeted to yet another development in the case when The New York Times reported with a headline that says trump told Bolton to help his Ukraine pressure campaign book says the president asked his national security adviser last spring in front of other senior advisers to pave the way for a meeting between Rudolph Giuliani and Ukraine's new leader according to their times more than two months before he asked you cranes president to investigate his political opponents president trump directed John R. Bolton then his national security adviser to help with this pressure campaign to extract damaging information on Democrats you craning officials according to an unpublished manuscript by Mister Bolton Mr trump gave the instruction Mister Bolton wrote during an oval office conversation in early may that included the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney the president's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and the White House counsel Patsy baloney who is now leading the president's impeachment defense now you'll see in a few moments and you'll recall Mister simple loaning suggesting that the house managers were concealing fax from this body he said all the facts should come out well there's a new fact which indicates that Mr so Bologna was among those who are in the low yet another reason why we ought to hear from witnesses just as we predicted and it didn't require any great active clairvoyance the facts will come out they will continue to come out and the question before you today is whether they will come out in time for you to make a complete an informed judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the president now the times article goes on to say that Mr trump told Mister Bolton to call Vladimir is a Lynskey would recently won election as president of Ukraine to ensure misters Lynskey would meet with Mr Giuliani who is planning a trip to Ukraine to discuss the investigations of the president sought in Mr bones account Mister Bolton never made the call he wrote never made the call Mister Bolton understood that this was wrong he understood that this was not policy understood that this was a domestic political errand and refused to make the call the canister bones mennesker portrays the most senior White House advisers as early witnesses in the effort that they have sought to distance the president from including the White House counsel over several pages according to the times Mister Bolton laid out Mr trump's fixation on Ukraine and the presence believe based on a mix of scattershot events assertions and I'll write conspiracy theories and Ukraine try to undermine his chances of winning the presidency in twenty sixteen as he began to realize the extent and aims of the pressure campaign Mister Bolton began to object he wrote in the book affirming the testimony of a former National Security Council aide Fiona hill who had said that Mister Bolton warned that Mr Giuliani was a hand grenade who's going to blow everybody up now as you might imagine the president denies this president said today I never instructed John Bolton to set up a meeting for Rudy guiliani one of America's one of the greatest corruption fighters in America so here you have the president saying John Bolton is not telling the truth let's find out let's put John Bolton under oath let's find out who's telling the truth trial is supposed to be a quest for the truth let's not fear what we will learn as Mr siblani said let's make sure that all the facts come out that is congressman Adam Schiff lead to house impeachment manager describing the new revelations that are happening even today about what went on at the White House involving possible only White House counsel senators this is now Val Deming's another house impeachment manager last Tuesday at the onset of this trial we billed for a leader McConnell's resolution to be amended to subpoena documents and witnesses from the onset from the outset this body decided to hold the question over you have now heard opening arguments from both sides you have seen the evidence that the house was able to collect you have heard about the documents and witnesses president trump blocked from the houses impeachment inquiry we have vigorously questioned both sides the president's counsel has urge you to decide this case and render your verdict upon the record assembled by the house the evidence in the record is sufficient it is sufficient to convict the president on both articles of impeachment more than sufficient but that's simply not how trials work as any prosecutor or defense lawyer would tell you when the case goes to trial both sides call witnesses and subpoena documents to bring before the jury that happens every day in court rooms all across America there is no reason why this impeachment trial should be in a different the common sense practices is born out of president there has never been never before been a full Senate impeachment trial without a single witness in fact you can see in the slide and every one of the fifteen prior impeachment trials the Senate has called multiple witnesses today we ask you to follow this body's uniform precedence and your common sense we urge you to vote in favor of subpoenaing witnesses and documents now I'd like to address one question at the office that there has been much back and forth about whether if the house believe it in its it has sufficient evidence to convict which we do why do we need more witnesses and documents so I'd like to be clear the evidence presented over the past week and I have strongly supports a vote to convict the president the evidence is overwhelming we have a mountain of evidence it's direct is corroborated by multiple sources and it proves that the president committed grave impeachable offenses to cheat in the next election the evidence confirms that if left in office president trump we'll continue to harm our America's national security he will continue to seek to corrupt the upcoming election and he will undermine he will undermine our democracy all to further his own personal gain but this is a fundamental question that must be a dress is this a fair trial is this a fair trial is this a fair trial without the ability to call witnesses and produce documents the answer is clearly and unequivocally no it was the president's decision to contest the fax and that is this right but because he has chosen to confess the fat a contest the facts he shall not be heard to complain he should not be heard to complain that the house which is the brother prove his guilt to answer the questions he would raise he complains that few witnesses spoke directly to the president about his misconduct beyond his damn in conversations with online and mobile banking okay let's hear from others then the witnesses the house which is the call directly to the president all the words his own admissions of guilt his own confessions of responsibility if they did not all the president's men would be on their witness list not ours these witnesses and the documents their their agencies produce tell the full story and I believe that we are interested in hearing the full story you should want to hear it more than that the American people we know they want to hear it the house Republicans all an expert witness in the house professor Turley said if you could prove the president use our military aid to pressure you grain to investigate a political rival it interfere and our elections it would be and then each a bowl abuse of power and senator Gramm to recognize that if such evidence existed it could potentially change is mine on impeachment well we now have another witness a fact witness who would reportedly say exactly that ambassador Bolton's new manuscript which we will discuss in more detail in a moment reportedly confirms that the president told him in no uncertain terms we're talking about the former national security adviser saying the president told him in no uncertain terms no aid until investigations including the bidens for a week and I have the president has said no such evidence exists they are wrong but if you have any doubt about the evidence if you have any doubt about the evidence the evidence is at your fingertips the question is will you let all of us including the American people here simply here the evidence and make up their own minds and you can make up your own minds but will we let the American people here all of the evidence you recall that ambassador bolt on the president's former national security adviser is one of the witnesses we ask or last Tuesday we did not know at the time what he'd say we didn't know what kind of witness that he would be but ambassador Bolton made clear that he was willing to testify and that he had relevant first hand knowledge that did hadn't yet been heard we urge we argue that we all deserve to hear that evidence but the president opposed him now we know why because John Bolton could corroborate the rest of our ever dance and confirm the president's guilt so today today senators we come before you and we urge we argue again that you let this witness and the other key witnesses we have identified come forward so you have all of the information available to you when you make this consequential decision if witnesses are not called here these proceedings will be a trial in name only and the American people clearly know a fair trial when they see one large majorities of the American people want to hear from witnesses in this trial and they have a right to hear from witnesses in this trial let's hear from them let's look them in the eyes gauge their credibility and hear what they have to say about the president's actions for the same reasons this body should grant our request to subpoena documents the documents that the president also blocked the house from obtaining documents from the White House the state department D. O. D. N. O. M. B. that will complete the story and provide the whole truth whatever they may be we ask that you subpoenaed these documents so that you can decide for yourself if you have any doubt as to what occurred let's look at this additional evidence to be clear we're not asking you to track down every single document or to call every possible witness we have carefully identified only four key witnesses with direct knowledge who can speak to the specific issues that the president has disputed and we target the key documents which we understand have already been collected for example at the state department they've already been collected there this will not call a substantial delay as I made clear last night these matters can be addressed in a single week as we made clear last night these matters can be addressed in a single week we know that from president Clinton's case there the Senate voted to approve a motion for witnesses on January twenty seven the next day it is Abbas procedures for those depositions and adjourned as a court of impeachment until February fourth in that brief period the parties to three depositions the Senate then resumed his proceedings by voting to accept the deposition testimony into the record in this trial to let's do the same we should take a brief one week break for witness testimony and document collection during which time the Senate can be returned to its normal business the trial should not be allowed to be different from each from every other impeachment trial or any other kind of trial simply because the president doesn't want us to know the truth the American people the American people that we all represent the American people that we all love and care about deserve to know the truth and a fair trial we choirs that this is too important of the decision to be made without all of the relevant evidence before turning to the specific needs for these witnesses and documents I want to make clear we are not asking you again to break new ground Raskin quite the opposite we are asking you to simply follow the Senate's unbroken residence and to do so in a manner that allows you to continue the Senate's ordinary business the Senate sitting as a court of impeachment has heard witness testimony and every other as we said earlier in every other fifteen impeachment trials in the history of the.
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Schumer amendment motion to table it quickly while we wait for that for that the roll call votes and and seeing how the number should count and where we're going next just walk me through with the democratic strategy is that we're watching play out right now we have seen them the sugar in wishing to vote or hold on Mrs Chief Justice John Roberts if not the yeas are fifty three Sunday's forty seven the motion to table is agreed to so another vote there as expected following along party lines democratic leader is recognized Mister Chief Justice engine engine kit the desk to subpoena certain office and management and budget documents and I ask that it be read the clerk will read the amendment senator Schumer they're introducing the third amendment he wants Senate to vote on it the house work read into the record at the appropriate place in the resolving clause insert the following section notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution pursuant to rules five and six of the rules of procedure and practice in the Senate when sitting on impeachment trials one the Chief Justice of the United States through the secretary of the Senate shall issue a subpoena to the acting director of the office of management and budget commanding him to produce for the time period from January first two thousand nineteen to the present all documents communications and other records within the possession custody or control of the office of management and budget referring or relating to a the actual or potential suspension withholding delaying freezing or releasing of United States foreign assistance military assistance or security assistance of any kind to Ukraine including but not limited to the Ukraine security assistance initiative referred to in this section as you as a hi in foreign military financing referred to in this section as FM half including but not limited to one communications a monarch between or referring to director Michael John Mick Mulvaney assistant to the president Robert Blair acting director Russell Vaughn associate director Michael Duffy or any other office of management and budget employee two communications related to request by president trump for information about Ukraine security or military assistance and responses to those requests three communications related to concerns raised by any office of management and budget employee related to the legality of any hold on foreign assistance military assistance or security assistance to Ukraine for communication sent to the department of state regarding a hold or block on congressional notifications regarding the release of F. M. F. funds to Ukraine five communications between one officials at the department of defense including but not limited to undersecretary of defense Alain McCue sicker and to associate director Michael Duffy deputy associate director mark sandy or any other office of management and budget employee six all draft in final versions of the August seventh two thousand nineteen memorandum prepared by the national security division international affairs division and office of general counsel of the office of management and budget about the release of foreign assistance security assistance or security assistance to Ukraine seven the Ukrainian government's knowledge prior to August twenty eighth two thousand nineteen of any actual or potential suspension withholding delaying freezing or releasing of United States foreign assistance military assistance for security assistance to Ukraine including all meetings calls or other engagement with Ukrainian officials regarding potential or actual suspensions holds or delays in United States assistance to Ukraine B. communications opinions advice counsel approvals for concurrence is provided by any employee in the office of management and budget regarding.
Adam Schiff Starts Impeachment Proceedings Against President Trump
"The Senate has open president trump's impeachment trial and peers winter Johnston reports nearly all senators and Chief Justice John Roberts have been sworn in chairman of the house intelligence committee and the lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff started the proceedings by presenting the articles on the Senate floor house resolution seven fifty five impeaching Donald John trump president of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanors after being sworn in to preside over the trial Chief Justice John Roberts administered the oath to the upper chamber will all senators now standard main standing and raise their right hand congressional Democrats continue to urge the Senate to allow for additional documents and witness testimony in the trial Republicans have rebuff those calls opening statements will begin on
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on KGO 810
"The Chief Justice John Roberts will come from the Supreme Court be sworn in to preside over the Senate impeachment trial after that all one hundred US senators will be sworn in for the trial as well this as new evidence continues to come in seemingly linking president trump to Rudy Giuliani's efforts to pressure Ukraine's president to do personal political favors indicted Giuliani associate left harness making the rounds of cable shows saying he delivered an ultimatum and made to the up coming at the incoming president of Ukraine that no senior U. S. officials would attend his inauguration and all American aid would be withheld if an investigation into Joe Biden was not announced and he tells C. N. N.'s Anderson Cooper many top officials knew about it including vice president Mike pence well the flavors present everything we're doing now I'm sure he was a new he was on a whim broke up of course you know everybody knows that with everybody there close close to trump's know though that this was a thorn in the side and this was a serious situation Russian lawmakers are set to quickly approve the appointment of a new prime minister today a day after president Vladimir Putin kicked off an unexpected reshuffle of his inner circle that could keep him in power indefinitely Putin announced he's working to carve out a new governing position for himself after his current six year term ends in twenty twenty four the Taliban say they've given the U. S. envoy a document outlining their offer for a temporary ceasefire in Afghanistan to last between seven and ten days the Senate this morning takes up expected to pass the new trade deal with Canada and Mexico I'm Michael to scan Brooks review by with bank member FDIC ways interns very based on credit history Amazon is not a sponsor of this promotion offered on the problem products ninety days after today other restrictions apply see website for details how.
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"As it's Gone Wall Street Journal. Reporter underlaw Hoffman. Thank you so much. Glad to beer after Wednesday's lengthy debate and vote the next stop for the articles of impeachment is the Senate. The constitution requires the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Preside over a Senate trial of the president. So it will be on Chief Justice John Roberts Roberts to take on that role. It's more public one for Roberts. Most of the High Court's proceedings take place behind closed doors and the Senate impeachment trial of president. Trump is shorts contract. Plenty of attention joining me now. From Washington with more details his Wall Street Journal reporter Jasper Raven so just before we get to you chief justice Robert Specific Role. What can you tell us about? How the impeachment trial in the Senate will work well actually? We don't really know to a large extent because the Senate has not adopted rules for this specific trial there are guidelines that the Senate adopted in nineteen eighty six before there were any twentieth century impeachment trials and they suggest that There will be the Senate will meet in the afternoon. There will be. Obviously a prosecution led by the house managers and a defense By the president's lawyers and there will be a presiding officer. That's the chief justice of the United States. The constitution actually requires that the chief justice preside when the president is Tried in an impeachment proceeding. We know that there have to be two thirds of the senators present voting to to convict otherwise The president would be acquitted of the impeachment charges. So we know those things we know as well that in contrast to a typical trial where the trial judge runs the show and while there can be objections. His decisions those Those have to be decided decided by higher courts Down the line in this court of impeachment as it's known the jury actually outranks the judge and can overrule him so so If the chief justice were to make a decision about Admitting evidence or particular arguments or whether to call a witness the Senate could by a simple majority vote overrule him And that's again something very different. It's like Having seven jurors Able to overrule the trial judge When he decides whether certain evidence is going to come in or not to criminal trial so that's one one distinction and in fact the The chief justice. It doesn't even have to make a ruling the nine hundred six guidelines say that he can choose to simply let the Senate vote he can punt and let them vote on those questions. uh-huh themselves directly so obviously impeachment is a highly polarizing issue and you write about how the presence of Justice Roberts could actually serve to calm that partisanship tell us a little bit more about given his history the role he might play here how he might direct proceedings. Well he's got very few precedents to go on on their only two prior Impeachment trials of a president and one one per century basically so there aren't a lot of simple models from to follow so but the chief justice runs the Supreme Court courtroom with a firm but not insensitive hand so he knows how to run proceedings. There's very little incentive for any of the parties to try to take him off because he will remain a very powerful figure in other settings for many years. Here's to come. Whether he can somehow alter the character of the town of the proceedings themselves is hard to say what he can do set. An example of how a federal judge behaves and how a judicial officers take their job and at a time when the judiciary like other institutions is under a a lot of criticism including From the president himself that may be valuable example to show to the public or turn of Li. It may not if things get out of hand and he you can't control it and it's a political circus and he is overwhelmed by it that that too will communicate a message. I don't think any of US expects that but A lot of unexpected things have happened in recent. Isn't years jazz as you point out aside from this impeachment trial president trump also has a lot of issues that are going to be coming before the Supreme Court which obviously Justice Roberts it sits on. That's a I think a a really important part of the dynamic to To keep in mind in this trial in this event although the the chief justice justice will have his black robes and he'll be sitting at the rostrum and you'll appear like a lordly magistrate overseeing these events The fact that he actually has on paper relatively little power because he can be so easily overruled by a majority of the Senate but coming up in the months ahead our are other matters involving president trump. Very important to whether he keeps his job in November when There will be another election. And what happens to him when he eventually leaves office. And that's because one of his important policies are currently in the hands of the Supreme Court For example the DACA program the temporary relief for for illegal immigrants brought to the US children president trump has sought to cancel that Obama era program. Lower courts have stopped him. The Supreme Court heard arguments about this and is going to decide. Probably June whether that program can be cancelled by the president or whether he has to take another crack at the rationale for ending it. Maybe even more more important the president has been fighting to stymie. A number of subpoenas issued by House committees and the The New York county prosecutor Cyrus Vance for his financial records these subpoenas Goto his accounts into banks for a house and state. Investigators reviewing hush money payments humans to stormy Daniels and other aspects of his accounting. That have raised questions if the Supreme Court is GonNa hear arguments in that in March. They won't won't be televised. Perhaps they'll be live audio. We don't know yet. That case also will be decided likely in June and that decision may have a tremendous effect on The president's future and how he is perceived so the fact that we can see Chief Justice Roberts behaving now may in fact color the way we look at what the Supreme Court ultimately does since he As the head of the federal judiciary really embodies that Third Branch of government. All right so plenty more to come here Wall Street Journal reporter Jesper even even joining me from Washington. Thank you so much just anytime. And that's what's news for this Thursday afternoon. I'm Marie for totally for the Wall Street Journal. Thanks for listening and..
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"We report that Goldman Sachs is in talks to admit guilt and pay a two billion dollar fine to resolve a criminal investigation for its role in a wide ranging Malaysian corruption scandal. Joining me now with more details Wall Street Journal. Reporter Liz Hoffman. Let's take a quick step back and just remind listeners of the context of this S. scandal. This is pretty wide ranging. This is widely seen as the largest financial fraud in history there was a government fund in Malaysia called one MD and it was extensively there to help develop the economy development. Projects Goldman helped raise about six and a half billion dollars through bond offerings to its clients. Prosecutors leaders in the US and Asia say most of that got stolen my couple of people that primarily a Malaysian national named Jolo and his associates who include two former former Goldman bankers and Some officials from the Middle East as well so just like a massive massive theft and a lot of that money has been lost forever. Probably some of it has been recovered real estate and other other things that governments around the world have seized yacht some art but this is like a great rate Heist Caper so Liz tell me more about your exclusive on Goldman Sachs and its talks with the US government. What exactly would this settle? It depends how broad it gets at the moment. Goldman is talking only really to the Department of Justice which is one of several agencies. That's been looking into this. So would settle the most serious criminal charges against the bank for violating federal anti bribery laws. It would probably not settle related matters with securities and Exchange Exchange Commission which usually have to do with broker dealers and disclosures to investors. It would not settle an investigation Malaysia which has been ongoing. So there's some loose threads here golden and would like to wrap it up sort of comprehensively the probably GonNa have to do it in pieces. How have the allegations wait on Goldman? It's certainly weighed on the stock price. It's widely seen as something that's been pushing down the stock price just because investors don't know how big a problem it's going to be. It's also been a reputational problems. People have to go out and pitch their business and there's headlines all the time about corruption bribery and it's just a bad bad luck all around. What are the other loose ends not involving Goldman that have it to be tied up here on Jolo remains at large the US government would like to prosecute him? He's sort of last known to be in China but they don't have him. There's another Goldman banker who was extradited from Malaysia. Here there are some you know. Both golden bankers one has pleaded guilty. He'll need to be sentenced. The other has pleaded not guilty in. We'll either need to be tried or have that wrapped up and you know there's some other banks. Deutsche Bank has been sort of implicated in this and this is the first bond offerings want him to be was started about ten years ago the first bond offerings two thousand twelve zoo really been a long running scandal and it's only gotten wider.
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on Let's Get Civical
"Deciding that's that's a lot of big cases that a lot of money. That's healthcare healthcare yeah. It's a lot stealing elections. Stealing Elections Yeah Gay Marriage Asa ruled on the census he swung and and ruled against having the citizenship question on the census recently that that that really well he was the one who is like you have to give me a better reason oh right right right about our as well because of the timeline of it. It's like to stay offs so it's yeah he's. He's very difficult. He's hard to pin down. Yes not like he's you. It's funny because usually if you're you know Republican conservative like I know more people who are socially a liberal but fiscally conservative yeah and that's not really what he that's not a definition for him at all. He's very socially conservative but yeah because of his healthcare stands could also argue that he's like more fiscally liberal raw yeah. It's really he's an odd duck. Yeah I would love to have a cup of coffee with Chief Justice John Roberts I'll call US Assistant Hall Bill You Call Them Yeah and then finally I have to random fun facts. I didn't know where to put gray. In the Dow hit rate's GONNA WE'RE GONNA end with these ran oven back. When administering the oath of office to Obama on his first inauguration Robert said the wrong word caused Alibaba stumble and they ended up having to do a Redo a few days later to do it correctly because like why in front of thousands of people million and you can see Obama's like that's not right like you see it on his face and he's like wait? What did he say? Do we know what he said. I don't know this is like a small like switch of words and Obama was like legit because they're doing it by like isn't John's not reading. He's doing memory and are you saying he couldn't memorize his lines award show. I think he got nervous. I thinking about an answer. This would have been I unless he did maybe he did the inauguration for Bush's second term then maybe this was this baby's first inauguration. I would be nervous to doing Santa for I I. It's like Oh my God. I would blackout yeah I did. I went out so did a ceremonial Redo to be like let's make sure we say the right words so nobody can be like the the oath wrongs therefore you're not president well. That's okay. Here's a lizzy question. Do we think in the two days that they were they. Were doing this Redo that is he. A valid president is I think I think he is I because it's like the Ozias ceremony and like yesterday the Constitution that like this oth needs to be administered but like to become president of the United States you have to win the electoral college right and he doesn't say to become the president of the United States. You have to say the oath of office that's true. It's just like I just write. The two things aren't laying finally united to win the Electoral Electoral College and you need to swear an oath. We're not going to find that oath. That's GonNa come later later. Trust me down the line where you're gonNA pin that right but the two aren't linked yeah I think personally I guess it makes sense because they couldn't be linked because then you have l._B._J.. Taking the oath of office on the plane after Kennedy shot and he was not elected by the college yeah that makes sense well yes he was technically elected by electoral college to be vice president right wow tricky wow one last one back associatively I chose. I just thought it was so funny. When in his Undergrad at Harvard he wrote his thesis is one hundred seventy five page thesis on the fall of British liberalism so niche?.
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on KOA 850 AM
"Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the supreme court's liberal justices today Roberts voting with the five to four majority blocking Louisiana's abortion access law from going into effect ABC news legal analyst, Royal Oakes. Breaking down the ruling it's probably too early for Republicans to claim the chief is going David suitor on them. But this is yet another high profile case where chief Justice John Roberts has joined the courts liberal bloc is not a final decision, but suggests the courts new swing vote is not inclined to dismantle Roe versus Wade. The state law would have required doctors to have mid and rights to a hospital within twenty miles of where an abortion procedure was being performed the richest man in the world is accusing the National Enquirer of extortion and blackmail, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos says the newspaper's parent company threatened to publish nude photos that he had originally texted to his mistress. However, the inquirer said, they would not publish the photos if the multi-billionaire. Said publicly that he had no evidence at the inquires coverage of him was politically motivated and finally the Denver public school. Board has issued a statement urging the Denver public school district and the teachers union to reach a contract deal to avert a strike on Monday. We believe that the district and DC TA can come to an agreement board member Jennifer bacon says if there is a strike on Monday, the walkout will negatively impact. Many in our area from parents cannot afford to keep their students at home or go without services provided these schools students who will miss critical instructional time and to teachers who made the tough decision to go without pay a press conference today. The board says it has faith in the new superintendent Susannah Cordova that she will work to secure a new deal with the teachers union also while she's preparing for a possible teacher walkout. Our next news update at ten o'clock. I'm Roger Hudson on KOA NewsRadio eight fifty AM and ninety four one FM..
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Really look at look at how you you you nine divided. Exactly, according to the the presidential parties from from whence you came. But he he went with the liberals, but I'm telling you that it's it wasn't that that momentous because the lower court judge in that case judge j Bibey a we certainly know flaming lib of a tried and true conservative appointed by George W Bush to was head his own inordinate attention, as you know, for many of his own policies when he was in the Bush administration. He he himself had rejected the government's attempts to defend the policy as lawful. A J by be on the ninth circuit said asylum would be become the quote hollowest of rights if foreigners fleeing to the US for fear of persecution face, these new Trump restrictions that condition eligibility on where the would be refugee tried to enter the country and on that kind of criteria criteria that had nothing to do with asylum itself. So would John Roberts was doing as he joined with the other with the four liberals of the court was not it was not adopting any kind of radical view. First of all, they weren't even voting on the merits. You know, it was just does this policy take effect or does it not, you know, it was a a stay motion as you know, and, you know, in effect, he was he was joining a an action that just affirmed the fact that is judged by behead noted below you know, for for six more than six decades supreme court head. The United States it except you refugees fleeing personal danger in their home countries, you know, based on laws treaties everything else that had nothing to do with where they entered the country. You know what I mean? So so you know that that is one caution. I would read into it to say again, these are preliminary nuanced actions were seen from him. And please do not lose sight of where he voted with the majority and wrote the opinion Trump versus why in June to uphold a President Trump's policy banning certain people from Muslim majority countries to things you're saying are worth teasing out the new asylum. Rules is a really good example of the story. John Roberts wants to tell playing out. So we have a district court who stays the original roles and says look plainly the statute does not contemplate what Trump is saying. We can now do then it bounces up to the night circuit J Bibey as you say who's forever going? To be attached to the torture memos rock rib Republican agrees. So that you have judges coming together. Despite who appointed them in this case coming together to strike down something that Trump does and that works and so for.
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Protect the third branch in in ghetto our democratic system, I think it's very important to him as an institution. Listen, I think we know those sorts of themes were in his Affordable Care Act decision when he went with the liberals, and he has not live. Down that vote in the mind of of conservatives, and that that is one model for where he might go in the near and long future long term future with the court buffeted. So, but I do not think there will be a distinct pattern ideologically, I think he will. I don't think he is predictable on certain cases. I do think he will be nuanced. I think that he'll take each term one at a time but with his eye to the long game and again things like race and religion and probably reproductive rights. He will be more predictable than he would be on some things having to do with executive power and the policies of Donald Trump. So I think that's the single most important thing that I have noted, and I I think we're in agreement is that he's not moving to the left and anybody who thinks John Roberts is drifting, Allah, John Paul Stevens or elevated. Souder even Ella. Anthony Kennedy to the left is overstating it what he is doing is a protecting the reputational interests of the courts and be plotting a long long course, I mean, he may be the chief Justice for decades, and he doesn't have to rush. And then I think what you're saying is he's doing a thing number C. Which is there are areas that he is passionate about and I agree with you racist. Clearly, one of them, suspect reproductive rights. He's not going to defect on those. But on issues where these are not his frontline concerns. And and I'm mindful of the second iteration of the Affordable Care case where he essentially said in when he voted with the liberals like, please don't ask me to carry water for crackpot theories straight. I'm not going to do every single thing that Obama haters asked me to do, and it seems that that's where the fault line. Line will be that. He will be very very consistent on the things that matter deeply to him. But on some of this stuff. It's just not going to be worth it for him to take a reputational hit either personally or for the court. And I wonder if that maps on if I'm correct about that Joan does that map on to the cases he is so far brushed away. Just in the last couple of weeks. You know, he's he's voted not to allow Trump's Justice department, you know, to to stymie the census citizenship case to stymie climate change lawsuit. He does not want to get involved as you said in this Planned Parenthood reimbursement case, it does that map onto what we're describing. Which is these are just not areas of interest for him. I think I think to an extent. But also, I think what he's doing it. He's he's taking small preliminary steps in. I think a good example is the most recent one from right before the holidays when the supreme court rejected by a five four vote. The Trump administration's effort to enforce the new policy at the board at the southern border denying silent people who crossed between ports of entry and entered the country illegally. He was with the liberal justices in this case breath, Kavanagh did go with the the conservatives, but John Roberts was with the liberal justices to to endorse the lower court's decision. Forbidding the policy to take affect because it it likely violates federal law. So the supreme court's action kept in place a lower court injunction while the litigating on the merits of the policy continues. It was not a vote on the merits. I got so many emails saying, wow, you know, he's definitely, you know, this is this is the new John Robert. But I think I think there it was one of those votes that first of all was. Not did not cost too much in terms of his own ideology. First of all it followed by just about a month. His statement that there are no such things as among judges Clinton judges Bush judges Trump judges, and if he had been with the conservative, you know, I think we all would have said, oh, yeah..
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Joan what you're saying is we can't just look at this on a sort of left right axis or social conservative were movement conservative versus progressive access. This is really now becoming at least in John Roberts mine. A deeply fought conversation about loyalty to the president. And who is in the tank for the president, and that the legitimacy of the court isn't just eroded by. You know, conservatives vote, you know, for guns and against affirmative action. But the laser focus in John Roberts. Mine is the concern that the court becomes a rubber stamp for Trump. And that is the issue. That's animating some of this pushback. And then what? Else? Dalia, you know, if I learned anything from dealing with John Roberts over the past three years as I was working on this book and meeting with him and talking to people close to him is that he has a terrific ability to see out into the future years ahead of what's going to come next. So I think that he's not only worried about exactly what's happening now with President Trump. But I think he's worried about a potential backlash and what happens. What happens down the road when when the Democrats take control which inevitably it some point they will likely take control. What about, you know, this talk of maybe expanding the number of justices on the supreme court. You and I think that is going to go nowhere because I actually have those I feel like oh come on. You know, really, you know, after all these years finally ITO, congress is going to expand the membership of the court just so that. They can water down. You know, the the Trump in a conservative influence. I tend to think it might not go anywhere. But, but the that's talk as you know, people are talking about potentially expanding the number of justices. And I think John Roberts sees it. And he sees other potential moves by the opposite side, not by conservative. But by liberals down the road that could also challenge the supreme court's impartiality enroll in American. I think he's trying to head off that kind of thing too. Seriously. I think that he's I think that that he he is not existing only in this moment. He's he's very good. At at looking ahead. He was a student of history as you know, he was a a history major at Harvard and at one point thirty we'd get a PHD in history. But I think he's he's very shrewd in how he looks to the future. And that anything he did in November in that that statement that he gave to the Associated Press in the next ended too. All reporters didn't capture his thinking for that moment to captured his thinking for what would come next. I'm so glad you said that Joan because I think when he said that an awful lot of folks said this is actually there's a straight line from his balls and strikes stuff at his own hearing. You know, once you put on the black robe, you become this Iraqi leader, but you know, nonpartisan thing and that he was extending that when he made his statements about there's no such thing as a Trump judges and Obama judges, and I think a lot of progressives balked it. Because short sounds like he's defending the institution. But he's also making a normative argument that is really bad for progressive, which is the judges are magic. And that he's been skating on that balls and strikes things for a long time. An awful lot of the Trump nominees who have gotten through on the lower courts make similar statement. You don't mind what I wrote in this polemical. Blog post about Hillary Clinton being the devil. Because once I put on my black robe. I too will be magic..
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"He was with his with the conservatives five to four to uphold it, and he took pains in that opinion to stress how he had to he had to write it as if the court was dealing with any president. Not this particular president and the court needed not to minimize the power of the the executive branch. Well, you know, the dissenting justices, and especially just as soda my or who would public from the bench that morning with her statement. You know, essentially said give me a break. This was not just any president. This was a president who ran on a campaign that was anti immigrant that was that included so much anti Muslim rhetoric. So President Trump cannot be regarded just as any president. It was sort of a get real moment in the courtroom that day, and she said Trump Trump Trump. I mean, the opinion was fascinating for just almost the mantra of you know, if you're not going to say his name, I am, but it raises Joan this paradox. And I think I suspect the generals or having this conversation amongst themselves, which is the the thing you're saying about the judiciary, which is when you are trying to protect this institution against. Somebody who's kind of nihilist doesn't care if the institution falls or rises every time you engage with him directly, you damage the institution. That's the thread that I think a lot of institutionalists like John Roberts are trying. You know, they're trying to walk this line between protecting the institution win. John win win. Donald Trump goes after all Obama judges are all liberal judges. Or, you know, anybody who strikes down his travel ban. The reason I think John Roberts has been so quiet until literally as you say he finally said something in November. And it was pretty anodyne as a win. But it's because as we learned when Ruth baiter Ginsburg punched back during the election, you drawback a bloody stump when you attack Trump directly, and you damage the institution to will two things on that Dali at one is. Yes, I think. He was worried about provoking the president in who wouldn't be given given what we've observed. So that was one thing in the back of his mind, but just to add some context to this John Robert himself from his early years amid twenties lawyer for president Ronald Reagan has been involved in the screening in vetting of conservative judges himself. You know, he when he worked for Ronald Reagan. And then when he worked for George H W Bush, you know, vetted individuals for the federal bench and was part of an emphasis that we now associate so so much with the federal society. But he was once part of a version of that. So he he has always been interested in getting more conservatives on the court and getting people who who frankly could be identified as Ronald Reagan judges as opposed to Bill Clinton judges. So it's it's a different degree. And I think what bothers him is not the notion that is I said he was part of bringing people onto the courts that would hold the ideological persuasion of president. But the notion that once an individual is in the black robe he or she is an automatic vote for the president's case. And that is exactly what Donald Trump is constantly. I was gonna say connoting, but he's not even it's not even mere connotations. It's direct statements. You know, just wait until the case gets to the supreme court. They'll be with me, you know, when he when he tweets something like that. I think what re first of all I think the chief would not want to even own a lot of his own ideological interest in a conservative bench. But what he definitely doesn't want to be part of is the notion that someone who who was appointed by a particular president is automatically going to be with that president. And I think that you know, that's certainly what. Many people probably took from the breath. Kavanagh hearings is that he would be a President Trump's man on the court. President Trump has certainly suggested to the public that Neil Gorsuch, and Brad Kavanagh will be with him. So that's really important. What you're saying?.
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Not just at you know, a Odom judges, but you know, at all judges on the ninth circuit at any judge who strikes down his travel ban. You know, he he has attacked the court not just the supreme court, but all article three courts in ways, we've never seen. And so we have 'institutionalised John Roberts sort of stepping into a role where he's going to protect the legitimacy of the court at the expense of his own, you know, political predilections there's a third factor, which is the cavenaugh hearings. Which really dramatically I think polarize the country specifically probably activated. A lot of women are using ways in which that third component the acrimony and the ugliness around. The Cavanaugh hearings is also making John Roberts act differently than he might have acted in the month since October. Yes, I think he is exceleron added. His public statements about the court being separated from politics. What many people don't remember is right after Neal Gorsuch was confirmed in April two thousand seventeen John Roberts was speaking on a campus Rensselaer polytechnic up in New York and didn't didn't get a lot of coverage. But he happened to say at that point. He stressed that. While the turmoil related to Justice Scalia is death the Merrick guard. Ireland nomination that went nowhere for a year. And then the final nomination and confirmation of Neal Gorsuch while that was all going on. He made a point to his audience that the court was acting through that time with just eight members in a nonpartisan way taking cases one at a time. You know, he wanted he he conveyed that message. It didn't get as much attention. As the message is referred to later in October of two thousand eighteen after brick Kavanagh's very Avala toll confirmation when he stressed about. How he picked up a line. In fact, from Brett Kavanagh that judges don't align themselves with one side of the aisle or the other that they are neutral, and that got much more attention. And I think he wanted it to get much more attention because obviously the cabinet nomination. Fight was a much much uglier much more public much more divisive than the Gorsuch one. But he has always feared he is set out loud on numerous occasions that he fears that after a heated confirmation battle that the public can't help it take away the idea that any new Justice is going to be driven by politics. Just as the confirmation battle was cloaked in politics. So he he made the statement in October up at the university of Minnesota, I think because of the cabinet nomination. And then I think because of the continued fallout again from what President Trump has said. But also the battle that he's fighting for his his own courts, reputation and stature in America right away. You know before thanksgiving he made that statement about you know, there's no such thing as Obama judge. There's no such thing as Trump judger Bush judge that was not chief Justice. John roberts. Does not do anything spontaneously. He had gotten request to speak to the topic of President Trump's derision of judges from. The Associated Press from our Sherman, which I thought that Mark drew something important out of the chief. But it was not a spontaneous statement in my mind. It was a statement that the chief had been waned for a while. I'd been talking to lower court judges who had been hoping that the chief would speak out against the president because of their own concerns about the judiciary's reputation. But I also know that the chief is has been for longtime concerned about how people might be regarding the supreme court itself, and how politicized it's gotten. You know, he's you'd think of how he voted in the case of Trump versus Hawaii on the president's Muslim-majority band last June..
"chief justice john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"I'm almost at the point when John Roberts tux about tone or civility. I feel like he's hiding something. I feel like it's a way for him to not talk about something that is demonstrably wrong in problematic, and again, I feel like I'm being unfair. I'm for civility yours for civility were all civil. But it feels like it's part of a cover up and the more John Roberts talks about the need for sued civility in the judiciary. The more it feels like he saying, please don't talk about things that are really problematic. I think we're at a very interesting point with John Roberts as leader of the third branch and questions of how he will manage the conservative majority in what sorts of signals. He wants the public to receive especially in light of two things. One is President Trump's complaint about the judiciary? But the other is the very real fact that this court is divided five four along partisan, political ideological lines. There's no getting around the fact that John Roberts in the other four conservatives were were nominated appointed by Republican presidents in the four liberals who are mainland descent on the big cases now were appointed by democratic presidents. And he even before this moment had put a lot of attention in to argue against the fact that there are. That they do not work as Democrats or Republicans. That was something he was saying from almost the moment he was confirmed in two thousand five and he's heightened that rhetoric in part because of Donald Trump and his complaints against judges. And the fact that he will often tag judge by naming the president to appointed him when he complained about an Obama judge who had ruled against his new asylum policy. Now what I think is happy with the chief, especially with Justice Kennedy's retirement is that he is overseeing court that is more divided along conservative liberal lines. And he is trying to counter a public perception of partisanship of political motivations and ideology that really is not based so much on law, but on more political inclinations, so I think the kinds of. Statements that we're hearing from him respond again in part to what Donald Trump said. But mainly to send a signal about the court. He's overseeing when he says we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges Bush judges are Clinton judges. He's talking about the perception, I believe of his own five to four court, not just the way Donald Trump has described this court, and I think that he's been trying to counter this for a while. And you know, he he himself. I think in some of his recent actions in votes is trying to send a signal that he cannot be as predictable as he might have been, you know, for years he had to dance around Anthony Kennedy as this centrist jurists whose vote he needed whose vote he had to. Woo. But who also essentially gave the court some cover because Anthony Kennedy. Nineteen eighty-eight. Ronald Reagan Republican appointee was not predictably conservative, and I'll cases especially not on social policy cases. You know? He he cast a key vote to uphold affirmative action on couch campuses. He was the voice of gay rights and of new right to same sex marriage. So he just as Kennedy embodied the notion that there is nothing that you can't describe someone as a Republican judger democratic judge without Kennedy. The court is much more divided. Exactly along those lines and John Roberts is now the the median, and he is no centrists conservative with a record of joining the left on closely watched social policy disputes as Kennedy was and 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 he's. Much more in a position to be torn between his ideological instincts. That have been built all these years from when he first served his lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration in his very real institutional concerns about the third branch in particular about the supreme court. So you've mentioned two really important things. You've said, you know, a a lot of this is responsive to the fact that for the first time in our lifetimes, we have a five four Republican appointed democrat appointed perfectly ideologically split court. There's no buddy in play. That's one thing. And the second thing is that Donald Trump is just in ways we've never seen from the president just battering away..
"chief justice john roberts" 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 john roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"Chief Justice John Roberts says he is saddened to learn that Sandra Day O'Connor the first woman to serve on the US court has the beginning stages of dementia. Roberts editor statement today that although Khader has announced which rolling from public life. No illness or condition in his words can quote take away the inspiration. She provided for those who will follow the many paths that she has blazed investigators trying to determine if a massive blaze that destroyed four buildings under construction in Oakland may be connected to a nearby arson fire fire quickly escalated from a second third fourth in eventually a fifth alarm response. Consist of about ninety personnel. Total on scene. It's oakland. Fire chief Darod white Oakland's mayor meanwhile, calling on residents near construction sites to remain vigilant and reportedly suspicious activity there bet at least three arson fires at apartment buildings being built in Oakland in the last two years. Breaking news and analysis at townhall dot com. The US has sanctions against group of individuals allegedly involved in terror activities, we get an update from correspondent Wally Hindes Treasury Secretary. Steve Mnuchin says it's an effort by the US at a half dozen other countries intended to expose and disrupt terror activities being conducted by the Taliban and Iran aimed at undermining the government of Afghanistan. Among those sanctioned is Mohamed Ibrahim Awadhi also known as the Haiti he's been accused of supporting terror activities by the Taliban. That is correspondent Wally Hindes reporting. Today from Capitol Hill, the New York City police department assessment of the use of one model of its body cameras after one exploded while news NYPD officer noticed smoke coming from the view L E five model cameras Saturday night. They've been taken out of commission..