35 Burst results for "Chief Justice Roberts"

Is Overturning Roe v Wade a Radical or Conservative Choice?

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:20 min | Last week

Is Overturning Roe v Wade a Radical or Conservative Choice?

"This is Tina. Tina says, quote, Charlie, I read a column of one of my conservative Friends shared on Twitter. That was written by someone on the right apparently said overturning roe versus wade wasn't conservative. Okay, so this is a column by Brett Stevens, who used to be a really smart person and he's just become almost unreadable in recent years. And this Brett Stevens now writes for The New York Times. And Brett Stevens wrote this for The New York Times. Overturning roe is a radical, not conservative choice. Now he calls himself a conservative, he's just about the same type of conservative as Bill kristol. That should tell you everything you need to know. Dear chief justice Roberts, justice Barrett Gorsuch Kavanaugh and Thomas, as you'll no doubt agree roe versus wade was an ill judged decision one was handed down January 22nd, 1973. It continues by saying, roe versus wade diminished the standing on the court by turning it into an even more political branch of government. But a half century is a long time. America is a different place, with a most of its population born after Rowe was decided. After a decision to overturn roe, which the court seemed poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion by justice Samuel Alito, would do more to replicate gross damage than to reverse it. He says it would be a radical, not conservative choice. So Brett Stevens, who I assume is very highly educated. I would like him to tell me what is the definition of radical. It means to the root to the core. To the basis. Brett Stevens asks the question in The New York Times. What is conservative, he says? It is above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for their law and institutions established to uphold it. And especially when those changes are instigated from above with neither Democrat consent, nor broad consensus. Okay, that is not what a conservative is, okay? If there is an immoral or destructive law, a conservative has a moral obligation to try to repeal it and get rid of it quickly.

Brett Stevens Tina ROE The New York Times Barrett Gorsuch Kavanaugh Wade Roe Versus Wade Bill Kristol Justice Roberts Justice Samuel Alito Charlie Twitter Rowe Thomas America
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

04:18 min | 2 weeks ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"And can not do with her own body How dare they How dare they try to stop her from determining her own future Vice president Harris called on voters to elect Democrats who support legal access to abortion meanwhile Kerry severino president of the conservative leaning judicial crisis network said the Supreme Court should respond to the league by releasing the opinion now We should just put this opinion out At this point I don't know how much editing the court wants to do anyway when you have a situation where people are going to be effectively comparing a red line version of the original and the result Severino speaking to ABC responded to chief justice Roberts saying the leak of the draft decision is a betrayal Venture capitalist JD Vance won a crowded Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seated Ohio Vance endorsed by former president Donald Trump now faces U.S. representative Tim Ryan who easily won the democratic Senate primary yesterday The November general election is to replace retiring Republican senator rob Portman Russian forces have unleashed artillery fire on towns in eastern Ukraine killing and wounding dozens of civilians and began storming the bombed out steel mill in mariupol Meanwhile the leader of the EU called on the 27 nation blocked the ban Russian oil imports European Union president Ursula von der leyen We will make sure that we phase out Russian oil in an orderly fashion So in a way that allows us and our partners to secure alternative supply routes and at the same time be very careful that we minimize the impact on the global market the EU's Ursula von der leyen rolled out their 6 package of sanctions against Moscow Live from the Bloomberg interactive broker studios This is global news 24 hours a day on air And on Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts more than a 120 countries Michael Barr this is Bloomberg Tom Paul Discuss Tom Brady is going to play the Seattle Seahawks at Tampa Bay Yeah we call him the Tom Brady's immune Germany really On November 13th I believe that's true Yeah We are now taking the NFL to Germany To London and Germany Did they ever go to Asia I can't remember No I don't think so but they've been in Mexico They have been to Mexico City But discuss the thinking here Bloomberg businesses sports Well we're going to take that in the National Football League One day and turn it to a W because I can see the world football league We keep going around travels the thing I want to see how this is going to turn out Let's say years down the road when I have like one gray hair in my head And I'm talking about this one here Will we see a global football league And that could happen I mean they tried it years ago Remember the world football league they tried something like that Okay Yeah The Tom Brady's are zero and three international They lost to the Patriots in O 9 I lost a Brady probably Bears 2011 Caroline Panthers I don't see the Detroit Lions here anywhere I guess they don't have a big draw This season we are going to see big crowds man At Ford field It is so mad We are going to be a problem this season I loved it They want it Is this what are they doing It's a dalliance to go international Do they really want to play like permanently international There's money There's all that money in there If you go worldwide and there's an appetite for it there's money Okay That's it I don't know Thank you In Munich Germany That's a good town Yeah sure Okay Michael birth thank you so much Bloomberg business of sports always interesting Futures it's a churn If it's been a cheering folks for two days futures up 7 eat a NASDAQ green on the screen a Bitcoin 39,000 I never quote Bitcoin There it is Alan leiner.

Ursula von der leyen Vice president Harris Kerry severino Severino JD Vance senator rob Portman mariupol Russian oil imports European U Tom Brady Senate justice Roberts Tim Ryan Michael Barr Tom Paul Germany EU Donald Trump Vance Supreme Court ABC
SCOTUS Leak: What We Learned About Chief Justice Roberts

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

01:50 min | 2 weeks ago

SCOTUS Leak: What We Learned About Chief Justice Roberts

"The Supreme Court's decision in the Dobbs case was evidently not due to be released for another two months. But a leaker somewhere in the court. And by the way, this could not have come from anywhere. There are very few people who know. Not only about the courts in their deliberations and the outcome, the kind of votes stack between on the decision 5 to four, but have a copy of the decision draft itself. The draft document, in this case, written by Alito. Now, let me explain why Alito, you might think, well, why not, why not justice Roberts? Well, the way these decisions work is that if the chief justice is in the majority, he typically writes the decision. So what this means is that the 5 four majority does not include Roberts. Now I'll talk about Robertson a minute because evidently Roberts has been reported. Again, I'm amazed this information is even coming out. That Roberts actually wanted to uphold the Mississippi law. So he wanted to find that past 15 weeks Mississippi could in fact outlaw abortion, but he did not want to overturn roe versus wade flat out. He didn't want to just return the matter to the states because remember, if you return the matter to the states, the state can pass a law, heartbeat bill that makes abortion illegal after 5 weeks. So after 6 weeks. So Robert seemed to be drawing the 15 week line of demarcation and saying that beyond that, you can regulate abortion, but before that maybe he was going to argue I say maybe because none of us have seen his dissenting decision, but apparently he was not dissenting flat out. He was in partial agreement with the majority, but he was not willing to go all the

Roberts Alito Dobbs Supreme Court Mississippi Robertson Wade Robert
Chief Justice Roberts Receives Highest Approval Rating Among Federal Leaders: Poll

Mike Gallagher Podcast

00:34 sec | 5 months ago

Chief Justice Roberts Receives Highest Approval Rating Among Federal Leaders: Poll

"Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts holds the highest approval rating of all senior leaders in the U.S. this according to a new Gallup poll that was released yesterday. More than half of Americans hold a favorable view of Roberts, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, and director, get this now. You ready? Director of the national Institutes of allergy and infectious disease, doctor Anthony Fauci. That was a surprise he Fauci is even more popular. Than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jerome Powell Supreme Court National Institutes Of Allergy Federal Reserve U.S. Roberts Anthony Fauci Fauci Joe Biden Kamala Harris
NCAA has its day in Supreme Court

The Paul Finebaum Show

01:51 min | 1 year ago

NCAA has its day in Supreme Court

"We were about to check in with with rick harrow. Who is our sports business. Expert and rick great to have you back lost you a minute ago. Glad you're back. And i don't know when we've had more legal questions on a sports show but with the supreme court argument yesterday the nfl bill Making the rounds. Who better to talk to than you. Harvard law graduate for those. Who don't know rick went to law school with chief justice roberts. I believe they even were roommates at one time. And rick. thank you for joining us. Enlighten us What's give us the lowdown on what you picked up from yesterday's hearing we were both chicago bear fan. It was abysmal. It was a terrible time. Oh not not the way. We roomed in went to talk about. Nfl stuff so you know. Look the bottom line is there is much more these days than we've had before the nfl. Name image likeness ruling. The allston case will Way to decide how far the ncaa gets to govern this. And ironically when you talk to some of the big time athletic directors all over college Sports they've been trying to figure out how to govern power five as you know versus everybody else versus division two in three verses the other sports versus title nine. They're all bunch of level of financial commitment. And you gotta cover all of them the name image likeness stuff doesn't just involve the top marketable player in college football or basketball. Every year trickle down to all five hundred thousand student athletes in the ncaa men and women so it is not an easy decision. Remember the ncaa. Mark everett last year said. We're going to do it. We both knew the devil was in the details. And it's a big devil.

Rick Harrow Rick NFL Justice Roberts Supreme Court Harvard Allston Ncaa Chicago Mark Everett Basketball Football
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

07:56 min | 1 year ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"C s and on all your devices placed 77 w A B. C Major League Baseball a rare rare trade. Scrappy story. Boston Red Sox acquire a sharp middle relief pitcher Adam Ottavino from the New York Yankees, the Imperial Yankees. Why would these ferocious rivals deal with each other? Wolves lie down with Lamb's John Basher show all four hours available all the time on distinguished podcaster such as I John Baxter. This is the John Buster Show the Majority leader of the U. S. Senate. Mr Schumer tells us the trial of the president of the United States on one charge of incitement to insurrection will begin on February 9th. Everything else is in move and motions. So I welcome my colleagues. That is McCotter. American Greatness. Andrew McCarthy national villain line to preview What Could be ahead of us. Not the same as we saw last January, February in the impeachment trial of President Trump, this will be an impeachment trial of former President Trump and there in lies the twist upon twist upon twist And let's get to the big twist. Chief Justice Roberts will not be present. Why not? Good evening to you, Andy. Good evening, John and Fatty is well, he won't be present because the Constitution says that The chief justice of the United States must preside over an impeachment trial of the president of the United States. President Trump is no longer the president of the United States. He's the former president. So under the Constitution, there's no requirement that Chief Justice Roberts preside. I don't know, John. Well, we don't have the full story yet. I don't know if there were any feelers put out to the Supreme Court to see to take justice Chief Justice Roberts temperature on whether he wanted to do this or not, or whether they just simply realized that this wasn't the presidential Impeachment. There was no point asking him but one way or the other. The trial gets presided over by the presiding officer of the Senate, who was either the vice president of the United States where the president pro TEM Of the Senate. Now that the Democrats have taken over the president Pro TEM is Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who was a very sharp elbowed partisan Democrat and the word we got today that's leaking after the Senate is that lady? Will preside over the impeachment trial. That is Andy. What do we know about who will be putting on the president's defense? And what does that tell us about what they'll be arguing? Uh, there's a South Carolina lawyer that he is that he's hired named Butch Bowers. Former rug JAG who's well thought of in When I say Jack of Judge Advocate general, the lawyer judge in the military, he's well thought of in Republican circles, particularly in South Carolina. He's got former Or prior impeachment experience because he represented Mark Sanford, who was governor of South Carolina, who is almost impeached. Uh, in that capacity. And his main line of expertise. As I understand it is election law, which certainly suggests that the Trump defense is at least contemplating, in part. Relitigating at the or using the impeachment as a forum to broadcast some of the claims that he was making in the last two months after the election. The puzzle is what we look like. We can presume that the Senate floor will be used at some point, Andy, but with Pat Leahy, judging supervising in some fashion They're got. There's going to be the concern that it does not look like a show trial that it does not look like the Red Queen is in charge and the verdict come first and then the sentence as sentence comes first and then the verdict. So how do you imagine they will stage this? Will they use the Senate? Yeah, I think John the the issue that you raises a very important optic and it's a big political problem for the Democrats. It's not obviously a constitutional problem. You could have a full Uh, Senate floor trial with, you know, just Pat Leahy rather than John Roberts sitting in the chair, but it would look like a political show trial, so I think they'll have a powerful incentive to Exploit rule 11 of the Senate rules of impeachment, which apply basically toe all impeachments, but they're not intended for impeachment of the incumbent president of the United States and what usually happens So as not to chew up all of the Senate's time on this stuff is the matter gets referred to an ad hoc committee for impeachment trial purposes, and they conduct the trial in the committee. Aziz what happened in the full Senate in a big presidential impeachment? They do all the same things they You know, hear presentations from both sides. They take whatever testimony they think they need. Then they certify the record and distributed to the full Senate. So eventually you would have a proceeding. Much briefer one before the full Senate on the full Senate would maintain the discretion to supplement the record if it thought it needed to hear from anyone else. We're here for many other witnesses, but they would otherwise just vote on the record that's developed in the committee. And not be present. They would not. They would not listen to the witnesses in person. Is that what you're imagining? Yes, The what'll happen. John is that the transcripts of any witness testimony given to the committee would be distributed to the full Senate. The full Senate if they voted to do this. Would have the discretion to bring in any of those witnesses for purposes of hearing. More testimony is a full Senate or they could call other witnesses. Or they could supplement the record anyway. They want But I think given that Leahy would be closely coordinating, undoubtedly with the Biden White House and with Senator Schumer, who's the mind majority leader now? In the Senate. It's highly unlikely that the full Senate would second guess whatever committee Leahy either presides over or or parcels. This out to Andre will be a very short proceeding in front of the full Senate, where they would just vote and they you know they would have to vote. On conviction. That would be the first vote and if there were two thirds vote in favor of conviction, then they would move on to the question of disqualification, which based on prior Senate president in some impeachment cases is a simple majority vote, not a two thirds vote. That is Well, Andy, Let's say that things go as expected, and this fails ultimately fails. What then will happen Will it be censure? What will what will what will happen next? But I don't think the Democrats are done making Trump a central issue to unify their party. You see studies. You are much more astute on how the politics of this works than I do. But my assessment of it. I'd be interested to know what yours is, but I think that they're the incentive of Republicans to do. A censure is much higher. If that obviates the need to have An impeachment trial..

U. S. Senate president Patrick Leahy President Trump United States Chief Justice Roberts Andy John president pro TEM Senator Schumer vice president Trump John Baxter Boston Red Sox Justice Roberts Adam Ottavino South Carolina New York Yankees
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KOMO

KOMO

02:59 min | 1 year ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KOMO

"Foreign and domestic At this moment in history, I can think of nothing more patriotic. And renewing our faith and the charters of freedom that our founding fathers crafted for our republic. Starting with the fundamental American principle in our declaration of independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the government. The people have spoken in this election and our only job here today. Is to do what they ask. It is not to argue Election security. That's not the place for what we are doing today. Constitution specifically reserves to the people the right to meet in the respective states and vote for the president and vice president. As a result, individual states oversee and implement the election process, not the federal government. Guard against fraud or irregularities in the voting process. The states are required to have robust election security measures. Likewise, state legislatures have the opportunity to examine evidence of voter fraud. Before they certified their electoral college votes and our courts. From district courts to the United States, Supreme Court adjudicate legal challenges and election disputes. All of those things happened after the 2020 election. Statehouses in courts across the country, took allegations of voter fraud seriously and follow the constitutional process to hear challenges to this year's elections. No state found evidence of any why'd spread voter fraud and neither did any court asked to review the state's findings in Arizona. Republican governor, Doug Ducey. Democratic Secretary of state Katie Hobbs, Republican Attorney General Mark Byrne of Itch and State Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Rubin. L all certified the results of the election on November 30th. And we know we have heard Arizona's have been voting by mail for almost 30 years, and Governor Ducey. Has expressed confidence in the states process numerous times in November, he said. We do elections well here in Arizona. The system is strong, and that's why I have bragged on it so much. He further stated. We have some of the strongest election laws in the country laws that prioritize accountability and clearly lay out our procedures for conducting Canvassing and even contesting the results. And they're right. Arizona has one of the most transparent election processes in the country with built in accountability, starting with eternal auditing. We have heard unfounded allegations that voting machines in Arizona and elsewhere somehow changed vote tallies or somehow improperly rejected.

Arizona Governor Ducey fraud Supreme Court United States State Supreme Court contesting president vice president Chief Justice Robert Rubin Mark Byrne Katie Hobbs Attorney
Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

Mark and Melynda

07:08 min | 1 year ago

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.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Gorsuch Cuomo Sonia Sotomayor New York Stephen Bryer Justice Sonia Sotomayor President Trump Barrett Gorsuch Thomas Alito Governor Cuomo Elena Kagan Zbig U. Amy Barrett California Louisiana New Jersey Cavanaugh
Much at stake as Supreme Court weighs future of 'Obamacare'

Howie Carr

00:36 sec | 1 year ago

Much at stake as Supreme Court weighs future of 'Obamacare'

"Supreme Court justices weighing arguments over the Affordable Care act and whether to get rid of it. Some questions may signal support to keep it. Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins called the individual mandate and unlawful naked command to buy health insurance and He said. It dooms all of obamacare. The mandate is inseparable from the remainder of the law. Chief Justice Roberts said Congress did not even try to repeal the rest of the affordable care act. I think it's hard for you to argue that Congress, um intended the entire act of fall, it's a mandate. Struck down a ruling expected in June affects the health care of more than 20 million

Kyle Hawkins Chief Justice Roberts Supreme Court Texas Congress UM
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

WBZ NewsRadio 1030

01:30 min | 1 year ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on WBZ NewsRadio 1030

"It is the chief Justice Roberts on so on a lot of issues, I think we're going to see Essentially a new swing vote in the middle of that court. And it's Brett Kavanaugh, which means this is a very conservative court a lot of controversial questions and tense exchanges over the past couple of days. Laurie Levinson is a legal professor at Loyola Law School. She talks about Senator Amy Club Machar's questions of whether Barrett would recused herself from any Supreme Court cases relating to this year's election. Some of the senators were pushing in specific areas. Senator Klobuchar pointed out that if Barrett were confirmed she would be yet another justice. Third justice who had actually worked on Bush versus Gore. That those justices should recuse themselves on any challenges to this year's election. The Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the nomination today and assuming it passes will move on to the full Senate. Later. Republicans say the swearing in is going to take place before Election Day. Stay with W. B. C news radio all day long for our continuing coverage or go hands free and listen on your smart device by telling it to play W. B C news radio on I heart radio 7 19 Sunshine 52 in Boston on the West Coast. Another flight crew spots What looks like Ah, man flying in a jet back near Los Angeles International Airport. It happened a few miles away, and correspondent Lesley Maren has more. Jose Moreno is a longtime pilot for united. He believes with the pilot saw,.

Justice Roberts Senator Amy Club Machar Senator Klobuchar Jose Moreno Brett Kavanaugh Barrett Supreme Court Lesley Maren Los Angeles International Airp Laurie Levinson Loyola Law School Judiciary Committee professor Senate Boston Bush West Coast Gore
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on WTVN

WTVN

05:51 min | 1 year ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on WTVN

"True Ceviche joins me now Andrew as a trial attorney from Texas and only one of 25 that is board certified in both civil trial law. And labor and employment law. I imagine you're paying quite a bit of attention to what's going on with the Supreme Court and the nomination and maybe confirmation of one Amy Cockney Barrett. I am in. First of all. Good morning, Jolan. Absolutely. I actually had a case go up to the Supreme Court. My co counsel argued it, but we wanted a 54 decision. So ah, a trial lawyer. I absolutely follow the Supreme Court. And it's Ah Ah, very interesting. What's gonna happen over the next two days? Tell me, you know, the Democrats are concerned that if Barrett makes the Supreme Court, it'll be 63. Conservative. How is 63 conservative, better or different than 54 conservative? Well, what they're afraid of is that the Chief justice Roberts tends to be a swing vote. But most justices when they get on the U S Supreme Court, they tend to go towards the center and the I think it's fearmongering because You know what she is, is an originalist contextual ist. She believes in precedent there, Patrick Leahy to say she's going to wind the clock back on women's rights. That belies that incongruent with her opinions as a justice on the U. S seventh circuit. If you look at her opinions in the last three years, she is upheld a jury verdict in favor of women that have claimed discrimination at the jury found in their favor. Women that have claimed sexual harassment the jury found in their favor. She's upheld those verdicts men who have claimed gender discrimination or national origin, she is upheld Those jury verdicts in favor of the individual. And then there are also fearmongering about the that she's you know, going to overturn the she's not as a textual is an original is Chief chess is Robert's already ruled that that was constitutional. An originalist believin steri decisis prior opinions. Like Roe vs Wade like the affordable care act and just real quickly on the A. There's It's such a small issue that's going up on November, The Supreme Court will hear And it's just a small appeal. It's limited to the issue of whether the tax or the penalty on the individual mandate is constitutional. After President Trump get his tax code and did away with the penalty for the tax, If you don't have insurance, the federal government will find you. And President Trump took that away. So California, Texas, it's now up on appeal on that very limited issue. She's the US Supreme Court is not going to throw out the affordable care act. That's the fearmongering. Well, that's the thing when the guy that's the hole in the president's see clearly would like to see that thrown out on your his nomination. I would think there would be conversation, maybe a little pressure to go along with it. There may be conversation. But you know the Ruth Bader Ginsburg roll every every nominee since then has has followed that rule, saying I'm not going to comment on issues that could appear before me. I guarantee there's no way she if anyone asked her, what would you do in this situation? She would say. I can't answer that on because that that could appear, But that issue could appear before me. And so what you have to do is go on her record. And her record. She was vetted very hard by the FBI when she was nominated and confirmed at the U. S seventh Circuit just three years ago, so she was already vetted. There's nothing in her past prior to 2017. Or the FBI would have found that during that, Ah vetting process, and then she was nominated. So now all you have to look for is the last three years of her opinions. And her opinions are not, you know, far right or way out there, in fact, on the court of Appeals of three justices in a panel and it takes two out of three. Obviously, she's voted with her colleagues 95% of the time, so she's not An outlier and the only issue for that Senate is is she qualified? And the American Bar Association, which is a political nonpolitical, nonpartisan has came out, said Yes, she is qualified. That's the issue. Not, you know whether she brought her Children to the White House, and it wasn't wearing a mask indoors. And I think you're going to hear some of that today. Yeah, no doubt. Andrew. True ceviche, our guest trial attorney attorney from Texas. Eso you talk about President Interpretation along those kinds of things a year. I mean, you're a trial lawyer. So what do you thinks more important to a judge, President or the actual argument before you in the court? Absolute precedent and the black letter law that are duly official, Um ah, Politicians that we voted for. So if you and I vote for somebody and they go to the house, he or she or go to the Senate and pass a bill and the president's planted in law, we don't like it. We can at least vote our elected officials out the next cycle. Do you really want five activist judges out of nine determining what that final law says what they think it ought to be. Or do you want them applying What are duly elected officials had And and and then if we don't like it, we could vote them out. That's the role of the judiciary. And I always say whether you're liberal, conservative or independent, you auto want originalist and textual list. Because then you will know when you cast your votes for you. You're really official elected politician, he or she or held accountable, but Supreme Court justices are not held accountable there there for life. And I would not want five out of nine..

US Supreme Court President U S Supreme Court Supreme Court Texas Amy Cockney Barrett trial attorney FBI President Trump Andrew Senate U. S Jolan Ruth Bader Ginsburg Patrick Leahy justice Roberts harassment official American Bar Association federal government
Lawmakers lay out arguments for and against Trump's Supreme Court nominee

John Landecker

01:39 min | 1 year ago

Lawmakers lay out arguments for and against Trump's Supreme Court nominee

"President Trump's nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg went through today day one of confirmation hearings. News nation Washington correspondent Ashley Kits, supporters and opponents of Judge Amy Cockney Barrett demonstrated outside while inside the Supreme Court nominee appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Democrats like Senator Cory Booker painted a dim picture of how barrettes confirmation could impact the nation. States may write laws. They could subject women who have miscarriages. Two investigations to ensure they didn't have abortions. California Senator Dianne Feinstein focused on Barrett's potential role in striking down the affordable care Act. The case that's before the Supreme Court next month, Judge Barat You've been critical of Chief Justice Roberts for his 54 opinion. Upholding the law. Although Democrats say the Supreme Court seat should not be filled this close to an election, Republican Chairman Lindsey Graham says there's no reason to delay She's been a circuit court judge at the seventh Circuit. Since 2017. She was confirmed to that position. To buy parts with about partisan vote. She has heard hundreds of cases in that capacity. For her part, Judge Barrett promises to be impartial. I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court. That interprets our constitution and laws as they're written. I believe I conserve my country By playing that role. You could watch the entire process live all week at news nation now dot com

Supreme Court Judge Barrett Judge Amy Cockney Barrett Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg Senator Cory Booker Lindsey Graham Judge Barat Senator Dianne Feinstein Senate Judiciary Committee Chief Justice Roberts President Trump Ashley Kits Washington California Chairman
US Supreme Court: The possible nominees to fill vacancy

Useful Idiots with Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper

04:56 min | 1 year ago

US Supreme Court: The possible nominees to fill vacancy

"Of you paid attention to who the possible nominees are. People are talking about Amy Kuney Barrett and Barbara Lago do you know but these judges and can you tell us anything about them? Sure I mean there. It's almost certain to be Amy Coney Barrett. Just because trump has generally deferred to actually others throughout his four years especially when it comes to the higher court, the Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, and there's really a pretty big consensus around amy. Barrett, there some talk that like trump would be helped in Florida if he went the other way. But I'll be I'll be very shocked if it's not her now she is you know a a more or less. Predictable right wing jurist. I think her her confirmation. We'll have enormous effects just because I think it's clear. She's a reliable vote to overturn Roe v Wade where. Probably, in her absence, they would just continue cutting the meaning of that precedent down. You know because even as of today it's it's been made so hard to get an abortion in the south that weather would wanNA speak of. A meaningful federal right to abortion is already open to question in in many other areas. She'll just confirm that drift to the supreme, court in this liberal direction, which actually some of the Democrats on on the panel have have kind of colluded and in taking it toward in recent decades. So the addition of one person is rarely like catalytic or transformative. Maybe on this one issue of abortion, it would actually lead five of the justices without chief justice, Roberts to overturn Roe v Wade, which might not happen otherwise and I'm not suggesting that's not a big deal. It is, but probably in most other areas of law, it would just be like the same more of the same except more. So so so what are the different ways that you see this playing out Let's say this happened than Biden is elected He then gets to replace I assume the next soon to retire Justice Briar I believe, right? I mean. We. Assume that Clarence Thomas would try to outlast Joe Biden in the same way that Ruth Ginsburg tried to outlast Donald. Anything could happen right and you happen and of course, we should probably talk about interesting relationship between Biden and Clarence Thomas. How much of a? Let's go there. How much did Biden in neighb- ball Clarence Thomas is Supreme Court. Or empower him as a sitting Supreme Court justice while he was instrumental as as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I mean you know we can get personal. But in we've all seen, you know whatever the you know the Netflix's reenactment of this level. But you know the truth is that Biden you know maybe like all of us only more so again has been a prisoner of his time all the way along and at that moment The He he responded you know as part of the like con, the comedy of the Senate required. You know he hung out with these other white men and they decided that this wasn't a big enough deal and there was deference even in a democratically controlled Senate to the you know right of the president to nominate a supreme. Court justice when a seat is vacant we've totally given up those those norm sense really as a country, but you know within the Senate to. You know I definitely think he sh- his treatment of Anita Hill is part of the record that we ought to think seriously about it's mainly testament to changing norms in the country about gender and about sexual violence and so I but I. so but I would kind of broaden out to less about his own limitations which may be substantial and more about you know. Where we've come why really starting with Robert bork before through the Clarence Thomas Nomination, and through our time we've we've really converted national politics into like these psycho dramas around filling supreme court seats, and again, the reason is not having to do with any of these individuals Biden Thomas. it's more with what's at stake, which is policy making authority over all Americans and it it is. It's. It's hard to argue that this particular institution auto habit

Joe Biden Supreme Court Clarence Thomas Amy Kuney Barrett Circuit Court Of Appeals Senate ROE Wade Anita Hill Justice Briar Netflix Robert Bork Barbara Lago Ruth Ginsburg Florida Judiciary Committee President Trump Chairman Roberts
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Thousands expected to pay respects as judge lies in repose in Washington DC

Bloomberg Markets

01:15 min | 1 year ago

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Thousands expected to pay respects as judge lies in repose in Washington DC

"To pay their respects to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg over the next two days as she lies in honor atop the Supreme Court Steps. Chief Justice John Roberts let a private ceremony with family and more than 100 of Ginsberg's former law clerks this morning before 183 majority concurring and descending opinions will steer the court for decades. They are written with the unaffected grace of precision. Ginsberg's absence on the high court could shift its ideological center from Chief Justice Roberts to President Trump's Last nominee, Brett Kavanaugh. More from Bloomberg's Kathleen Hunter could be particularly important when it comes to issues like abortion. That could go before the court and Cavanaugh in particular his propensity to sort of narrowly craft agreement that we've seen our opinions that we've seen so far from him. That could be something that you know becomes very, very decisive. Sources tell Bloomberg Senate Republicans there formulating plans to hold the hearings for President Trump's nominee around October 12th and that could set up a full vote in the Senate. A week of October. 26th President Trump plans to announce his choice to succeed Ginsberg on Saturday. The White House says he will pay his respects to her tomorrow. The government

Ginsberg Chief Justice John Roberts Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg President Trump Supreme Court Bloomberg Senate Brett Kavanaugh Cavanaugh Kathleen Hunter White House
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

06:34 min | 1 year ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"With Joon Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. Chief Justice John Roberts has often talked about the collegiate ality among the justices and how the Supreme Court is different from the other institutions of government. There is a concrete expression of that collegiality in a tradition at the court that has prevailed for over a century. Before we go on to the bench to hear argument in the case. And before we go into the conference room to discuss a case We pause for a moment and shake each other's hand. What the Supreme Court became, like every other DC institution in one respect it leaked. Ah, Siri's of CNN stories by Joan Baez Cubic, based on unidentified sources reveal details of the maneuvering by the justices behind the scenes this term, including deliberations, the justices conducted behind closed doors with no one else present. My guest is constitutional law Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas Law School. Steve. How surprising was this from? Ah, usually leakproof institution. It was the volume of the leaks. June I found really unusual. It wasn't just know one or two high profile cases where we found out about them in the behind the scenes machinations. It was absolutely every major case in the term, but that's what he said. Apart from leaks we've seen lately. I mean, we've been, for example, from Jennifer Greenberg that Robert had changed his vote in the Obama care Case, 2012 So it's not unheard of. I think it's a number of different leaks about this term that really made that run on stories. I think the initial And of course, we know that in the past, there have been many instances where justices themselves have leaked information so you can narrow the leakers down to a handful of people the clerk spouse is and the justices themselves. Perhaps it could be a justice. Oh, I wouldn't be surprised at all. And I think it's actually leased like that. The leaders in this case were staff or a clerk because they're the ones who have faced the most serious national ramifications. If there was ever found out that there were speakers wouldn't surprise me at all. But leave some of these liquor from the justice or from their thousands of individuals who might get a little nervous that we find out that they were the leaders who aren't going to suffer any To rep professional consequences somehow that come down. So what would be the intent of leaking in this case? What would be the benefit to a leaker? The intent could be multiple been unbelievably extra, clearly designed to embarrass Chief Justice Roberts that some of the leaks are too come inside until wife didn't go the way that maybe conservative protective. That's why a lot of the population has gone, for example, doesn't Lido just maybe even Ginny Thomas? Because it doesn't extends? Why, for example? Progressive justice would want some of these stories out there. All that is to say that I think there are lots of folks with different agendas. When it comes to the Supreme Court hasn't been in this case. Those agendas probably has something to do with making clear the public that the behind the ship this terminal. The big move really were by the chief justice, which, frankly, is something we already were fairly confident of. Exactly know what I saw was interesting, but nothing shocked me. What was the most surprising thing to you? I wasn't shot by almost any other June. I was a little surprise in the story about Justus happen off the extent to which she really had been pushing the court in the trump financial record cases to consider this offer, And the whole new kinds of disputes are categorically non decisional because that's at least something inconsistent with what Bennett Judge Cavanaugh had written about the political question, doctor when he was He was quite critical of the doctrine be amusing in exactly the manner it sounds like he would propose it so that it could be consistent with prior. But the more general stories about horse trading about flips in about majorities, co elected as the opinions wrote me that part of the court the notion that the court picks one very clean vote. At conference and then write clean opinion and the vote's never move. I think it's alive by every single piece of historical evidence we have. What's different this year is that we're just a tribute to those shifts a little after and more publicly than is typical. A lot was written about Chief Justice John Roberts maneuvering on controversial cases did it seem as if he exerted his power Maur this term that in previous terms Yes, And I think there's no question that the chief justice with at the center of this term, I think in a way, unlike any of his priors on the court, and frankly, you'd probably on like any other in gosh, maybe even a century. I didn't. That was something really though a matter of circumstance that it was the kind of cases the court had, and the climate in which they're being decided, no idiot not to imagine a term with a different weight of cases. Where the Chiefs institutional them wouldn't be as on the play where there might be more. Your five for the authorities were. Maybe if Gorsuch 25 million Kavanaugh or rack heard ones where you have that whole marsh, the justices, I think it was the nature of the docket. This term the business really what was going on? And the fact that almost all of the big cases Came down to the chief's vote in that contract. Of course, you know he's going to be the one who controlled all that added to the fact that he's of course, already administratively responsible for the court, a signing up and running of the ship behind the theme, though I don't go the term with 2/3 and we're any chief in his position would have is there one case where the CNN articles show that he exerted more influence than others? There was an emphasis on the doctor case. The doctor Kate all along really wass, the bellwether, and there was some sort of populated by court watchers, whether there was behind this indoctrination. One second come down in the stories. That report is accurate. If that know the chief was actually a reliable vote or the challengers from the very first time they met that, unlike the LGBT cases are like a couple of other cases working the shift as opinions were right in, you know, the five for majority we saw in the doc A decision really was consistent with a very original but a conference And do not tell us because the doctor looks so much like the Census physician case from last term where we know the chief actually did have a change of heart. And I think it's interesting that in a very similar concepts where it's really a question of just how much no administration has to turn square corner where the year ago that she's really agonized over this year, he seems fully on board with ruling against the president from the get go..

Chief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court Joon Grosso ality University of Texas Law School CNN Bloomberg Radio Ginny Thomas Joan Baez Cubic Justus Professor Stephen Vladeck Obama Siri Steve Chiefs president Kate
Pence knocks chief justice as a "disappointment to conservatives"

John Rothmann

00:26 sec | 1 year ago

Pence knocks chief justice as a "disappointment to conservatives"

"Mike Pence Made a comment today that is worthy of our hearing and discussing the vice president of the United States ripped Chief Justice Roberts in an interview. Following him a disappointment to conservatives. We're gonna talk about what happens when the vice president of the United States attacks Chief justice

Vice President Justice Roberts United States Mike Pence
The Ruling

This Land

05:04 min | 2 years ago

The Ruling

"Last summer we brought you. The story of one court case posed a determine the future of half the land in Oklahoma and the treaty rights of five tribes, since then so much has happened. Let me fill you in. In two thousand eighteen, the Supreme Court heard the case of Patrick Murphy a man sentenced to death by the state of Oklahoma for murder Murphy claimed Oklahoma didn't have jurisdiction to prosecute him. Because the crime occurred on the reservation of his tribe Muskogee Creek nation. Oklahoma claim that reservation no longer existed last June. The Supreme Court was scheduled to issue its decision, but then it didn't happen at the end of the term as you know, and your listeners know. The the court ended up not deciding it and kicking it over for argument. This is Ian Gershon Gorn. Patrick Murphy's lawyer and then in a very unusual. Situation having kicked it over for re argument. The court didn't schedule it for rearmament in schedule it in October didn't schedule it in November but in December. The court made a shocking announcement. The US Supreme Court is scheduled to here in Oklahoma man's appeal today after he said his case should not have been tried in state court, they decided to hear a totally different case in Nineteen ninety-seven Jim. See mcgirt was convicted in central for the rest of his life for raping his wife's forty year old granddaughter. The rape mcgirt committed happened within the boundaries of Creek nations historic territory. is also a tribal citizen of Seminal Nation of. His alleged crime and Patrick Murphy's are both agree justice, but states don't have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians Indian land, only tribes and the federal government do. Mr mcgirt, having learned of the Murphy case in the Tenth Circuit in the victory there with the help of fellow inmates, so-called Jailhouse Lawyers filed a Pro Se handwritten petition in the Oklahoma State Court, he lost in the State Court, and then he filed a handwritten pro se Sur petition in the Supreme Court. On December Thirteenth Twenty nineteen the supreme. Court announced that they would hear his case, so he didn't have a lawyer up until and through his Supreme Court. Petition, that lawyer became Ian Gershon Gorn, but if the Supreme Court was already deciding this issue with Murphy, why would they choose to hear a second and basically identical case if you remember and Murphy Justice Gorsuch recused himself because he had dealt with the case in the lower court so the supreme. Supreme. Court was down to just eight justices, an even number that seems to have left them with a tie vote. What the court was doing was looking for another case that presented the same legal issue, but would do so in a context in which justice gorsuch was not recused, which brings the total number of justices back up to nine, so the case that would ultimately decide native land and treaty rights, and our state became mcgirt the Oklahoma. I this morning case, eighteen, ninety, five, twenty, six mcgirt versus Oklahoma. This is chief. Justice Roberts, speaking on a conference call like all our lives. The Supreme Court's term was disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic. The transition to at home hearings came with a few awkward moments. Thank you council Justice Gorsuch. But it also made history for the first time ever. The public could listen live. That Monday morning I was sitting at my desk with C.. Span Open on my computer. It felt like everyone in Indian country was tuned an angel LS Creek citizen and reporter for Muskogee media. The Tribes Newspaper was listening from her home and Ocmulgee. County. I was watching it online and I had my headphones on, and I'm staring at my computer screen. Occasionally I start talking to my computer screen and my kids look at me. Like what was mom gone crazy or she? Just you know kind of having a rant. It was kind of strange to be watching. people talk about your tribe and and components of their history and. Maybe, they do or maybe they don't always understand. It was really surreal. Experience I felt like I was experiencing history and my dining room table.

Us Supreme Court Oklahoma Oklahoma State Court Patrick Murphy Murphy Justice Gorsuch Ian Gershon Gorn Justice Gorsuch Mr Mcgirt Muskogee Creek Justice Roberts Angel Ls Creek Murder Jailhouse Lawyers Ocmulgee Muskogee JIM Reporter
Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized last month after a fall, Supreme Court says

Joel Riley

00:26 sec | 2 years ago

Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized last month after a fall, Supreme Court says

"It was just over two weeks ago, Chief Justice Roberts had to be taken away by ambulance and stayed overnight in the hospital. He suffered a head injury that required stitches. No explanation why the incident wasn't revealed publicly when it happened. The secret kept confidential until someone tipped off a reporter. Roberts has suffered two seizures in the past, but the high court says his doctors Ruled that out as a cause they believed he was dehydrated. Derek Dennis ABC NEWS the FBI's during an

Chief Justice Roberts Derek Dennis FBI Reporter
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO

Newsradio 600 KOGO

04:13 min | 2 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on Newsradio 600 KOGO

"Starting with abortion as the primary subject matter today, but I've got to because there's something going on here. Fox and even the drive by media is a little concerned over. Judge Roberts. Justice Roberts Chief Justice Roberts Very, very, very concerned, not quite sure what to make of what's happening here. And here's why Justice Roberts has done it again. He joined the four lock Step Democrat justices. Whose job on the court Is much different than the conservative that the liberal judges just make sure they come down on the correct agendas side of every case to advance the leftist cause to advanced liberalism. Whatever it doesn't matter how they get there, That is the objective and they are always in lockstep. They never split a weather like snot. I mean, just last week, there was there was a 7 to 2 ruling and some of the Libs joined. The Conservatives are very rare cases that generally do not involve The advancement. Of the leftist agenda. So once again, Justice Roberts Who, as you remember was appointed by George W. Bush. On the pretext that he was a conservative. He was one of these guys. He and Alito these guys, they're going to lead the court into the future. And I've told you before. I've had a number of people say to me Rush. You're you're wrong to be worried about Kennedy or wrong because Chief keep a sharp The chief is the next Kennedy. The chief wants to be the next. Just just focus your attention there. I've been told that by Number of people who turned out to be right about it. But this this case here It is. It's a flip flop. Justice Roberts has flip flopped. He joined the four lockstep Democrat justices to rule that laws requiring doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The Louisiana law. And it said, if you're going to do abortions, you better have Ah, admitting privilege. If you're an abortionist, Dr you better have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital if something goes wrong. That law was shut down today because Roberts joined the left saying that it Violates abortion rights is spelled out in row versus Wade. But the problem is the wheat Louisiana law that was struck down today is virtually identical. To a law in Texas. That the court I stood up for in 2016. Well, no, no, they I'm sorry. The court struck it down in 2016. But back then, Roberts dissented in the Texas case and did not join the Democrat. Just same case different state. And justice, flip flops, Justice Roberts flip flops. In Louisiana. He made it clear that He couldn't He couldn't side with the conservatives in this case because it violates Roe vs Wade, but 2016 almost identical law. From the state of Texas. Roberts dissented. And so, uh, everybody's wondering what's going on here. This is not a matter of law. There's the theory is something beyond The judgment of law or the adjudication of the case. And the case Law specifically is going on here with Robert's, because It doesn't make any sense. Doesn't make any K any sense. Intellectually, it doesn't make any case any sense, judicially and of course, now this end result leaves us With two different standards. In Texas and Louisiana..

Justice Roberts Chief Justice Roberts Louisiana Texas George W. Bush Alito Wade Fox Libs Kennedy Robert Roe
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

07:57 min | 2 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Live this George, Secular. Take your phone calls at 168 4 31 to 5 to four decision. The US Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion here and the court. It's a victory for religious liberty, but in the scheme of kind of healthy Zehr going around the country For states who are trying to broad out there. School choice and issues where we talked about that. Florida, which is not making a lot of news with Wall Street Journal, picked up on it out of Florida. They explained their school choice program another 30 or 40,000 students who will be eligible for that program. And and so it's up, but sub states Throughout the country. Have these laws on the books that we talked about that when we launch our school choice initiative that laws on the books had tried to prohibit having any kind of money going to religious Institution's whatsoever. So if it was a religious school with any kind of affiliation whatsoever, But the target at the time was 100% on Catholic education because there was no other. Major religious education going on in the country. This was this goes way back at our history at a time is pretty bigoted Law a law that I mean would not stand in these days, right? I mean, there's no way no laws like this would be adopted yet how states tried to modernize and was we're not gonna find any religion whatsoever and what they've said here is If you're gonna have a program that you can choose any school you want, including private education, That's what what I can't say. Oh, that private schools OK, but the one with the priest or the over the pastor or the one that has chapel What's a week regarding or or the Islamic school? Jewish school go down the list Hindu school. All the different religious groups we have is is not going to be excluded. Well, what it says is any establishment clause, which is church state separation for any establishment clause. Objection to the scholarship program here is particularly unavailing this what Justice Roberts chief Justice, Roberts said, because the government support makes its way to religious schools on Lee as a result ofthe Montanans Independently choosing To spend their scholarships at such schools. What's also interesting. I'll get to this in a in a moment. I argued in the Santa Fe case, which I have not. I didn't see that in here, which was another one that didn't go our way. And we had about three of our 20 that did not go our way. And these were always tough cases. And I argued that there should be playing in the joints in the establishment Clause Doctor in which they did adopt there, But here, they said, the religion clauses of the First Amendment provide that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We have recognized a quote Play in the joints between what the establishment clause permits and the free exercise. Klaus compels. So this is I think I said Yes. I don't know if we found it yet. We're looking to find it. I said, you know. We got a not so great opinion from Chief Justice Roberts yesterday and maybe today we get a good one. I said that kind of tongue in cheek. I think that's actually pretty true. Do we have it will Okay, we'll load it in a minute. Yeah. I mean, I think it goes back to again and I think we have to question whether we're going to accept that as moving forward. It's not gonna do anything about the people of the court there on the court for songs. They want to be there, but moving forward. We're gonna accept It's 50 50 With the other side. Let me tell you who are the other four. You all could figure that out based off who nominated because they rarely break from the pack. They don't. They have different reasons for getting there because they make up the reasons as they go. And they came and come to agreement, but they all do agree on the outcome and outcomes matter as much to them as how you get to the outcome. And maybe more so and with our this conservative judicial philosophy, I mean, I agree with Senator Holly tunics, and I think we could modernize the way we have gone about this nomination process and look at who are the three people. Putting together the list, and maybe their track record isn't strong enough to where they're the only people that should be in it. Maybe we need to ask those more direct questions. Say if you're not going to answer them. In a closed door meeting with the U. S senator or during your confirmation, then I'm sorry. We're going to vote No on you, and we'll just bake our way through the judiciary until somebody's we're clear because this is it. I mean, this is let me it infuriates the Otherside, too. He's Totally unpredictable on these matters, but maybe not as much on religious liberty issues directly. And so I think this but it has two huge ramifications. One if you want to. Fundamentally change did not have your city's burning down and figure out kind of culturally civically as a country. How do we move forward? What if you don't improve education? So People's life starts out already deteriorating schools who don't it does It looks like we've thrown so much money at this problem. Obviously, money is not the answer. You could increase salaries. I don't mean actually, it's not always the teacher's fault. Sometimes it's it could be that there's just not the resource is how many trailers do you see outside of public schools? Go to a private school? Have any trailers? Will you see You know it's a lot less, but the idea of some people said, Well, this is going to hurt the public schools, which we've written about that that's completely false. And I want to re always get grants. I want to reiterate something. I want to reiterate something here. I think this is one of the Civil way said this. This is one of the civil rights issues of our time. And it is one of the civil rights issues of our time because and this is important, understand It evens the playing field so that parents that don't have the resource is to send their kids to the private school of their choice if that's what they want to do our charter school Have the ability now to do that. How that hurts education. I don't I don't see it And we've written about that. But I think giving this equal opportunity grant, which is what it really is, I think bodes well for the future. I think the Supreme Court got it right as it relates to religious schools. But more importantly than that, it got it right as it relates to parents having that fundamental choice, which is something that we at the J think Is a civil rights issue the right to an equal and good education. We've been talking about equal equality and equal education since Brown versus Board of Education in 1954. Well, now in 2020 we actually have a mechanism upon which we condone it. And now today, the Supreme Court cleared the way so that all schools could be included within that perimeter, including schools that have a religious affiliation, so I think this is a really good decision, Chief Justice Roberts wrote. I think Alito's justice leaders concurrence. Obviously I'm biased since he's citing my law review article twice is very, very good. I think we have a I said it yesterday. I said we got you know the decision from John Roberts yesterday, the chief just I thought was wrong. On the June Medical center. I thought that he was it was odd because three years ago go. He said that the Statute was a strike in a good way. I mean, it was like it was right down the court got it wrong and they, you know, they called it a ball and it was a strike. That statute was constitutional. Three years later, that same pitch is a ball. I thought he got that wrong and you sorry decisis on the decision. That's 36 months old to me. It doesn't It doesn't make sense. He's the chief justice. He gets to make the decision, but I did say this yesterday. Look, there's some other decisions coming that, you know, we may be pleased about Justice Roberts decisions I don't know. Well, I do know now, and this was a good decision. Now there's more coming. He's written a lot in the last couple of days to big ones, and then the back of the week before. So you know how many more he's writing. I don't know, but we're obviously we're still waiting for the president's cases with those I expect those are probably going becoming next week. Yeah, I mean, what that's probably, you know, I see a lot of folks that kind of wondering about these cases have this coming because they're not there, and they throw in some throwback footage to when people are at the Supreme Court..

Chief Justice Roberts Supreme Court Justice Roberts Hindu school Florida Wall Street Journal Islamic school George Senator Holly tunics Klaus senator president June Medical center Congress Alito Board of Education
Trump seeks to rally base with immigration full-court press

The Dave Gram Show on WDEV

04:49 min | 2 years ago

Trump seeks to rally base with immigration full-court press

"STAY SAFE MAINSTREAM Warren village. It's the Dave Ramsey show. WD DV. The US Supreme Court last week came out with a second pretty big decision and one, which was not popular with the trump administration, having to do with the With the dreamers, the children of immigrants some of whom have grown up pretty much all in the United States and have considered themselves US residents. Maybe American citizens even although Let's talk about the particulars here. Dan Richardson. These folks are. How would you categorize them? Actually are. If you're a citizen, you're you're not. You're not in this category anymore. Is that right? People? That were brought to the United States You know without without permission. I it legally is the term. That's used although I think it's. It's important to realize that a lot of immigration law is civil as opposed to to criminal and I think we tend to when we think of things is being illegal, which is true? You know we have to be careful. And I think is important distinction. because it's a lot of what this case rests upon as well but these are people. These are individuals who brought to the country as as small children by parents that did not have permission that we're you know either overstaying their visas or entering without permission or visas, and then taking up permanent residence, so these are people who were technically born in another country did not have citizenship, but for all intents and purposes have been raised as American citizens. Their entire lives or at least akin to that. and so it was intended. This is a policy program that was created by the Obama Administration, which was intended to slice at some of the immigration issues that seem to have stymied a lot of national politics, and this is a good example of what I was talking about before. which is that one way or the other? We have not been able to come up with a good policy solution to any type of immigration issue We have not resolved the fact that there are. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of. People living in this country that do not have full citizenship status for one reason or another. And, this was an attempt to to cut off. Probably the most innocent of that bunch these people that did not cross on their own volition. They were brought These are people who do not have strong ties to the country. where they came from in many cases, they do not speak the language. They do not have Relatives or or friends or acquaintances in the country and they are for all intensive purposes, productive members of and the fact that was one of the requirements that they be productive members of society I. Mean these are people who have either served military or who? Hold essential jobs are professionals you know it was an attempt to create the best class of of immigrants that lacked any type of of legal standing and to protect them, and to say look. We'll deal with immigration in these other things, but we're. WE'RE NOT GONNA go after the best and the brightest. Will Continue to let them stay in the country In this case, it's a five four decision. Chief Justice Roberts again voting with the majority but it a very narrow decision. And it really rests upon whether or not the administration. The trump administration gave. A good reason to abandon this policy. and in some ways you know I've heard this characterized. This is basically the Supreme Court swatting down sloppy legal work on the trump trump administration's. Side others might characterize it differently but essentially what it comes down to is the fact that the trump administration on basically two one page memos tried to change this policy and eliminate it when there were you know thousands of people that had. Relied upon it had given up information that they would not otherwise be a required to give up who had made changes in plans. Change their life and made adjustments based on the promise of this government policy, and while the government can change policy when such things occur when they're such reliance by parties on it, there has to a good reason and the Supreme Court basically said. Government you haven't given us good reason. And it doesn't mean the government can't go

United States Us Supreme Court Supreme Court Donald Trump Obama Administration Dave Ramsey Warren Village Chief Justice Roberts Dan Richardson
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

01:56 min | 2 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"More broadly chief justice Roberts we said it will usually again is it so long as Congress is moving in in what the court regarded as the right direction they don't have to do everything at the same time so the fact that you say we should allow more speech here here and here again it doesn't mean that it has to be done at the same time as the first step was taken and it was here right your honor and I think what what the Williams who usually inquiry is really getting at is whether the exception undermines the credibility of the government's interest but it's been asserting and I think in this case the twenty fifteen exception out really does undermine that because it's not getting at like it is not trying to exempt the least intrusive of privacy speech available it's it's actually exempting the kind of speech that the FCC itself has acknowledged as the most intrusive kind of speech and knows about the the the deck calls and so we absolutely I think it's talking about a situation in which the government or Congress is trying to the legislature is trying to accommodate kind of a day this is the the the speech that that is the least problematic from the purpose from the standpoint of the interest that's being asserted but here Congress has done the opposite exempted the speech that's most problematic and I think that that really makes this a different case from Williams Yulee and brings us squarely within the the concern we immediately had which is that when Congress enacts broad exceptions like the one here it might actually be a sign you might be evidence of the fact that the interest that the government has asserted first speech restriction really isn't that strong thank you your friend on the other side of the severance question makes a very strong point that Congress had this law for twenty five years and then I added this yeah pretty discreet exception that created.

justice Roberts Congress Williams FCC Williams Yulee
Don Tamaki on Stop Repeating History

Model Majority Podcast

11:15 min | 2 years ago

Don Tamaki on Stop Repeating History

"Is the background? And the purpose and the goal of the Stop Repeating history campaign that you are a Parv well as the listeners know in one thousand nine hundred eighty two almost one hundred twenty thousand Americans of Japanese ancestry were removed on the say so of the government alone and put in in American style concentration camps three individuals charged the challenge government in that process. Read Komatsu Gordon Arabiya. She and Menu Suey. And those cases were heard in nineteen forty three and forty four and the Supreme Court to their surprise ruled against them and those cases stood for almost thirty seven years for the proposition that without trial without evidence entire racial group. Lose your freedom. Their property and be imprisoned indefinitely by accident thirty seven years later in the nineteen eighties of secret intelligence reports from the army the navy the FBI were found. They surfaced all of which admitted japanese-americans Americans oppose no threat in he committed no wrong and Department of Justice lawyers urging their higher ups basically to tell the truth and not lied to the US Supreme Court and on that basis. We assembled hey legal team to represent all three lead against I was on the legal team representing Redcar. Matsu and based on that evidence of misconduct really abusive power lies in order to manipulate. The of those cases of Fred Karma sues a criminal conviction for Divine. The military orders were overturned and In separate actions the convictions of coordinator beyond Xinmin Yasui and the legal team basically educated the public about what happened when trump announced his travel ban in January twenty. Seventeen we reconvene these legal teams In order to to work with the quarterbacks who center in Seattle and the law firm of Aken Gump to represent the adult children of Fred. Komatsu Corden here beyond Menu. Sui Basically make brief was to remind the court that When they when the court stood down and did not ask questions and accepted the government's claim that doing this Drastic separation civil liberties made the nation safer. It was a civil liberties disaster. So we filed amicus brief Basically to urge the court to examine whether the travel ban Really made the nation safer or in fact was merely fulfillment by trump campaign. Promise that he made repeatedly on the campaign trail down the borders to Muslims and American families of entering the country. Saturday in two thousand eighteen. The court has upheld the travel ban. Five four but we had launched a public education campaign called stop repeating history in order to also inform the public. What had happened and that it ought not to be repeated so I love to hear what your thought is in your whole team. Start when you saw. The travel ban announced his clearly. You being intimately involved in the overturning of the Coronado to indicated by Ashi end the convictions node. The history in intimately well. What kind of parallels did you see that in your mind in your team's mind Signaled the fact that the travel ban against Muslims and a lot of refugees as well is literally in your organization's word repeating history. We were enormously disappointed and angered by. The court's decision was cited by five to four majority. So there was a divided and we thought it was an opportunity for the court to once and for all reverse in truth. Komatsu versus the United States. Judge Chief Justice Roberts did provide lip service have met decision basically saying the core mottes who was wrong. The day was decided but in the same breath join the majority polling the travel ban which in our mind reinforced the worst and most dangerous aspects of Karma swoop versus the United States which was when the executive branch the president invokes. National Security. Courts will stand down. They'll abdicate their traditional constitutional role of being a check and balance on the presidency. And the problem with that is when you have an executive branch which is gone rogue and would certainly happened in nineteen forty two and it's happening now. It opens the door for tremendous abuse of power in the lesson of monsoon. Is that when there is no check and balance The temptation for political leaders to Fabricate facts to misrepresent Epa evidence in order to manipulate the outcome of in this case Major Supreme Court cases that temptation becomes irresistible and the founders of this country certainly understood that every high school civics students knows that we have three branches of government. We have executive branch the Presidency the legislative branch. Which is Congress and the judiciary the cords? Each are coequal each. You're supposed to be a check and balance on the other and the genius of the system was it was really designed to thwart the rise of kings in tyrants and when those systems fail as they did for Japanese Americans. This is how dictators get started. You have in this case of President. Exercising unfettered power and the consequences are severe. You have children being separated from their parents. You have a president who targets minorities whether they be immigrants muslim-serb refugees and the latest attacks are on Asian American specifically Chinese Americans by labeling a global pandemic as a quote Chinese virus and institutions are supposed to be check and balance on that kind of abuse and we see history repeating itself all over again. I want to dive in a little bit. Into the point you made about Fabricating Facts to litigate in front of Supreme Court which is pretty mind boggling for everyday citizens to even contemplate you know we generally hold the Supreme Court to pretty high esteem is the highest core of the land is the final. I call or final decider on a lot of highly controversial disputed issues but to your point people or government in this case in particular actually lied to the Supreme Court to get their position one. And you have a lot of experience with that in the overturning of the quartermaster case. I think that is essentially. What you your team discovered that lets you even the possibility that you could overturn the Supreme Court case which again too many people's minds that is the final decision right when the Supreme Court says something whether you decide whether you agree with it or not it is done but of course they are edge cases and exceptions to that. Could you tell us about? Maybe your experience overturning. The Komatsu case will was the discovery of that. Were the lies that were discovered that. Lets you guys even being able to do this? And then of course tying to what we are experiencing right now whether it's the Muslim ban or potentially other offer things can happen in the future. While thirty seven years after the fact the Supreme Court cases decided Komatsu here she knew. Sui In nineteen forty three and forty four thirty seven years after that secret intelligence reports were discovered by accident by researchers Peter Irons and Heiko Yoshinaga hurt sick. Which really all that. The government in order to manipulate the outcome of these landmark Supreme Court cases fabricated evidence and even burn them and despite the protestations of Department of Justice official soon attorneys who urged their superiors that they ought not to be lying to the Supreme Court to clarify. We did not over earned the decision. What happened was basically Before nearby she in ministry five the orders for this bass removal. They were charged and convicted with Criminal violations and Suffered criminal penalties and we reopen these cases. A writ of error was the only device reopen these ancient cases. That would've otherwise been time. Barred by this limitation isn't criminal writ calls rhetoric quorum notice which allows litigation to reopen their case to clear their name and doesn't give them any money as and give back the years that they lost. They can remove their criminal. Convictions we won on those. The government appealed their loss and then they withdrew their appeal in our system. Only the loser can appeal not the winner and so the the withdrawal of the appeal was a very strategic. Move to keep it out of the. Us Supreme Court And only the court supreme court can reverse itself now when the trump versus quiet case came up in twenty eighteen. That was an opportunity for the court squarely. Look at the facts Komatsu because there were very similar to the travel ban and actually reverse it reverse that case and sadly the court didn't take that

Supreme Court Government Komatsu Major Supreme Court Komatsu Gordon Arabiya Department Of Justice Komatsu Corden Executive SUI President Trump FBI Judge Chief Justice Roberts Parv Fred Karma Coronado National Security Seattle
The Supreme Court case that could transform abortion

WTOP 24 Hour News

02:21 min | 2 years ago

The Supreme Court case that could transform abortion

"Just this week on the first major abortion case of the trump error the justices are considering a Louisiana law right now requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital the case could reveal how willing the more conservative court is to roll back abortion rights a decision is expected by late June according this morning to Supreme Court reporter for The Washington Post Robert Barnes this case comes from Louisiana which is a state that passes a lot of abortion restrictions more than any other state in the country it's almost identical to a case that this court struck down in twenty sixteen but the court had a different membership then in that case justice Anthony Kennedy joining the liberals to strike that wall down of course Kennedy is now retired he's been joined by two of president trump's nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh how does the questioning by the justices go to this particular case rubble justices made clear that their minds have not been changed by anything that this kind of law is unconstitutional so the two people who seem most now I wouldn't say inclined to join them but the two possibilities to join them would be Chief Justice Roberts and maybe just says Kavanagh both of them ask questions about the twenty sixteen president which indicated that they felt that that the president was still in force and that they had to abide with it but they wondered should you look at this state by state so if this admitting privileges requirement was a problem in Texas does that also mean that had to be considered a problem in Louisiana or do you go state by state as you might imagine the lawyers had different opinions on that and Chief Justice Roberts nor justice Cavanaugh gave their own opinions on what they thought the right answer was yes the justices uphold the Louisiana law what might that mean for other abortion cases down the road well I think it would be a real signal that the court is re re examining its abortion jurisprudence as I say this case was just decided four years ago for the court to come back now and do something different I think would show that the court was very open to restrictions passed by the state's on abortion and that they would receive a much friendlier reception at the

Reporter Robert Barnes Louisiana Anthony Kennedy Donald Trump Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Chief Justice Roberts Kavanagh President Trump Texas Justice Cavanaugh Supreme Court Washington
Rand Paul reads alleged whistleblower's name on Senate floor

Curtis Sliwa

00:17 sec | 2 years ago

Rand Paul reads alleged whistleblower's name on Senate floor

"Rand Paul allegedly not allegedly he said the alleged name of Ukraine whistleblower on the Senate floor today when Chief Justice Roberts refused to read a question on that rand had I guess ma'am or Mister Paul skews me had put

Rand Paul Chief Justice Roberts Ukraine Senate Mister Paul
Standoff over impeachment witnesses continues as senators set to ask more questions

Dave Ramsey

01:03 min | 2 years ago

Standoff over impeachment witnesses continues as senators set to ask more questions

"Today senators are questioning house managers at the president's lawyers in the impeachment trial senators and the final day of asking legal teams questions in the impeachment trial picking up where they left off yesterday on the president's intent and motive when he asked you cranes leader to investigate Joe Biden and his son and the timing of the president withholding military aid to Ukraine trial managers Lofgren arguing that the Senate should recognize how subpoenas and call witnesses these were validly issued subpoenas under the house rules the White House argument to the contrary is wrong it would have profound negative implications for how Congress and our democracy function meantime senator rand Paul walking out after trying for a second day to submit a question that reveal the whistle blowers name in the case Chief Justice Roberts the presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted senators moving toward a vote whether to allow new witness testimony and documents they have asked more than ninety questions so far in the round with continuing coverage the impeachment trial of president trump I'm Michelle Franzen

President Trump Joe Biden Lofgren Senate Congress Senator Rand Paul Justice Roberts Michelle Franzen Ukraine White House Officer
Trump lawyer Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his reelection

Curtis Sliwa

07:03 min | 2 years ago

Trump lawyer Dershowitz argues president can't be impeached for an act he thinks will help his reelection

"Because well the drama in Capitol Hill is whether that vote tomorrow will produce for rebel Republican senators who will say you know what we've sat here we have enabled calm and they read all questions on the cue card Chief Justice Roberts but I think will need to hear a little bit more from Bolton himself maybe some of the documents we don't know what that what that vote will amount to at this point I guess if you were taking action like you would Superbowl action between the chiefs and the San Francisco forty Niners now take fifty fifty it's it's sort of suede it looked like they had the Republicans they will more than four now looks like maybe they don't so we'll see how it turns out but while all that was taking place while McConnell was meeting separately with mark how ski apparently trying to convince a no no you don't want to join Collins said and Romney on that and become the Republican senator number three to jump ship Alan Dershowitz who's considered the legal beagle from Harvey took to the floor in defense of the president of the United States is part of the legal team I made an argument I did not the socks off of people whether your legal experts or you would just pragmatic in common sense no matter what your politics all over the world will watching in fact he talked about the quid pro quo that would be used towards gaining an edge in an upcoming election of a sitting president every public official what I know believes that his election is in the public interest and mostly right your election is in the public interest in for president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment I wish I was I literally went wow if that's that's their defense that's their final word on this that is bad because I need so basically what he's saying is president is a green lit what to do what ever the hell he wants as long as he's saying and the presidential interest me getting reelected is omnipotent yeah infallible and because he's already present he or she should have the right to use a quid pro quo in order to stay in office because it's to our benefit it's the people spend in fact right so that I'm not miss quoting it and will obviously allow all of our listeners to weigh in as to what Alan Dershowitz men on them is one eight hundred eight four eight W. A. B. C. that's one eight hundred eight four eight nine two two two listen to what he said from the well of the Senate yesterday that has people shaking their head light I thought this was the legal lion of Harvard every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and mostly right your election is in the public interest in for president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest I cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment the reason our fathers created this concept of impeachment was very simple presidents are not gods they're not kings they're Americans who have been chosen to serve the country not their families not their friends not themselves but the United States of America and our founding fathers understood that man can be a moral man can be corrupt and so they set up a system of checks and balances are and further protected the country with the act of impeachment but now our president's legal team has suggested that anything the president wants to do as long as he claims that it's done in the national interest of getting reelected he can do right yes carte Blanche to behave with unrestrained abandoned if you once and if you're already a sitting president and he seems to imply it's in our public interest that you continue to be present and fulfill the two term limit and if it means dealing with a foreign power in which you do a quid pro quo okay look we're helping you with giving you a I need you to help in terms of digging up dirt on my adversaries my opponents whether they're running against me in a primary like Jimmy Carter remember had primary was primary by Ted Kennedy before he had to run for reelection against Ronald Reagan when he lost think of that think of the ramifications and then naturally everyone was stunned because he remember woozy Alan Dershowitz who was so different during Clinton Bill Clinton's impeachment what happened since nineteen ninety eight is that I studied more did more research read more documents and like any academic older my views so so in in so it's his mind there is there is no such thing as abuse of power when you're president so yes he may have pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt to trash Joe Biden he may have held they have hundreds of millions of dollars allocated money to Ukraine to add to the pressure but it's okay because even using the power of your office to serve yourself is okay if you are president I have to tell you guys this is the GOP's argument and if if you support this if the if the senator support this and they reelect him and his supporters you will be ending democracy as we know and I'll tell you as a former Republican lifelong I'm fairly certain will not go down on the right side of history with this one does she which as a former Democrat solid Democrat right across the board he's basically saying because now he is a supporter of the Republicans that he has a different view but as a lawyer let's face it he didn't say this he's a Hessian he's a mercenary lawyers are trying to argue a case both point at the same time in Los right will look the perfect example kellyanne Conway I'm not picking on her because she's trumps person but she has been she was you early on in the campaigns she was ripping trump apart as was one zero and this is what they do but I mean this is this is all about what's going to happen to this country and the democracy but the country this is a man whose reputation for being bright when it comes to legal matters and giving it to you straight has now been dramatically compromise because he has basically said you know when I was a Democrat I sure did Democrat way now that I support the president and the Republicans because save embrace me I see it the

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KGO 810

KGO 810

02:22 min | 2 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KGO 810

"A greater responsibility on the presiding justice on Chief Justice Robert as you pointed out in the last impeachment trial with president Clinton and it was Rehnquist Rehnquist what was the famous quote the reason he was so effective was because he did so little that's what he said and justice Roberts the Chief Justice Roberts is almost bought but when he doesn't have to do so little potentially and that's what some Republicans are saying that perhaps considering that there are people who are not taking their seriously perhaps they should give a greater role to the Chief Justice in making certain decisions and not allowing them to be over ruled by the Senate Majority because that's the way it was and that's the way it probably will be but they're talking about we have to see what happens now we just giving you our two top we got to take a break Pat what is the third on your list I don't I don't like I said I didn't really put them into order but them I will tell you one of the ones that I have on my list is the growing anti semitic violent and that I kind of am lumping into the violence in the country because it's interesting that murder rates have actually gone down violence in the country believe it or not has gone down but mass shootings and mass killings have gone up and anti semitic attacks have gone up and so I think that this is a very this portends something incredibly dangerous for this country and I think that we have an obligation to try to get to the root of what is actually going on here these something has to be done about these mass killings mass shootings not all of the mass killings were done by gun fire most of them were of course and not all of the mass shootings resulted in mass death but there were four hundred nine incidents of mass shootings in the country last year and the numbers of mass killings last year reached this year twenty nineteen reached a record high let's talk about that and the rise in shoe hatred we'll talk about that I'm John Rothman and she's Patterson and we are right here on KGO they're.

Chief Justice Robert president Clinton Rehnquist Rehnquist justice Roberts Pat John Rothman Patterson Senate murder
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on 850 WFTL

850 WFTL

03:48 min | 3 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on 850 WFTL

"And practices for the sake of their historical significance or their place in a common cultural heritage, he observed what's more taking down such symbols may be even more disturbing and divisive than leaving them stand. The nineteen seventy-one lemon test required judges to consider whether a government action has a secular purpose in effect of not advancing or inhibiting religion and doesn't. In foster, an excessive government entanglement with religion. But this subjective test has become increasingly unwielding amid challenges to diverse laws and practices, leading to what Justice Neal, Gorsuch, rightly called a mess. Chief Justice Roberts and Gorsuch, Brier, Cavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. Agreed that lemon had grown stale, but they couldn't agree on a rule to replace it. The plurality opinion by Alito joined by the chief and justices and Kavanagh suggested a test considering historical origins, what categories of monuments symbols and practices with a long standing history following that tradition. They are likewise, constitutional Alito noted under such a test cities and streets named after saints would pass constitutional muster lucky for Los Angeles. They right. But just as briar in his concurrence pointedly noted that he did not believe the court's opinion would permit any newly constructed religious memorial on public land so across shape war. Memorial is kosher, if it was built a century ago, but not today just as gorgeous wanted, none of that. What matters when it comes to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn't it's age but its compliance with ageless principles. He wrote in his concurrence the constitution's meaning is fixed, not for not, not some good for this day, only coupon and practice, consistent with our nation's traditions is just, just as permissible, whether undertaken today or ninety four years ago. Why get frustrated about this is throwing in their opinions about what is symbol means constitution. The constitution to me was extremely clear. Congress can't establish a religion. Right. Didn't say the local governments can put up a monument. That's not establish a religion. It is not there's a clear difference between if you wish to change the constitution change the constitution. It also does not establish an endorsement of a religion because this is where they go to by the way, if they achnowledged a religion if they acknowledged a symbol of a religion that is not an endorsement, and that is not congress. That's on the local level, that is not congress establishing a religion, as you mentioned earlier, like the church of England if, if for example, and you had this to the discussion, we, we have talked before about Muslim soldiers soldiers at serve in the United States, military that actually fought in Iraq and in and in the war on terror, and they're Muslim. If a local Muslim community wished to put up a religious symbol to honor Muslim soldiers killed in battle for the United States. They have every damn right to do that. -solutely. Absolutely. And it's not an endorsement of any religion. It's an acknowledgment by local community, a group to put it on. Public land. There was a guest piece at Skoda's.

Alito Congress Chief Justice Roberts Gorsuch Justice Neal United States Los Angeles Skoda Kavanagh Clarence Thomas Cavanaugh Iraq church of England ninety four years
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:01 min | 3 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on We The People

"When for example, when the health of the mothers at stake. Third testing laws that require women have ultrasounds for example, and for notification a doctor's telling women about other options when you look about when you look forward to what the supreme court may do Clark. You believe that Rohan Casey should be overturned, the conventional wisdom at the moment, whether it's correct, or not is that chief Justice Roberts will not be eager formerly to overturn Roe v. Wade, but may instead prefer to uphold some of these restrictions under the Casey undue burden standard without formally repudiating. Do you agree with that conventional wisdom? And if it's right, what kind of laws, do you think are likely to be upheld in the short and medium term? Maybe you could give us a sense of what you're expecting over the next couple of years. Well, first of all, it's obvious at least up to now that the. Court is going slow on the abortion issue. If they're four cases before it now to from Indiana. One from Alabama one from Louisiana. The court could decide to take any or all of those or none of those, and they could decide to do that, by the end of the term or they could kick the can down the road to the fall. So there's a great deal of uncertainty, but up to now it's clear that the court is going slow on the issue. But, you know, the you mentioned the laws coming out of, of some of the red states. But the blue states are going in an opposite direction in ex expectation that the court is going to overturn Roe sooner or later. That's what we call federalism in this country and, and federalism will better reflect public opinion on this issue, rather than the one-size-fits-all dictate that the court issued in Roe versus Wade. And so. I might not have written any of these laws, the way they're written or all these laws, the way they're written. But the fact is, that's what it means to live in the United States and have a system of federalism, in which the people can keep their legislators accountable to them express their opinion and have public policy of fitting better with public opinion, rather than the unsettled forty six years, we've had under Roe versus Wade in which the court's decision has obviously conflicted with democratic action, Catherine your thoughts about whether you agree with the conventional wisdom that chief Justice Roberts may not be eager to overturn Roe, and therefore uphold draconian time restrictions that would ban reproductive choice from the moment of conception as the Alabama law would do, but instead, they'd be more inclined to uphold. Conditions on reproductive choice, t testing laws in notification laws on the Casey onto burden standard. And, and if that's right. What will the effect on women beat? So I think there's two issues here. One is will the court take an abortion case and, and make a new ruling and win. So let's start with weather. I absolutely think an abortion case will go to court soon. It may be out of one of these four cases that are currently pending. It may be one of the band's, but frankly, as a matter of practical reality, it makes very little difference. I am of the view. Unlike what you originally said that there are five oats on this current court to overturn Roe Justice. Roberts is not going to be our savior here, Justice Roberts was mentored by chief Justice Rehnquist. He took positions against abortion early in his career in a variety of different ways. He joined the court in the very limited view star, deci. Isis in this Hayek case just couple of weeks ago, chief Justice Roberts is not going to save us here. And in fact, I think it makes very little difference..

Justice Roberts Roe chief Justice Rehnquist Rohan Casey Wade Roe Justice Alabama Clark Indiana United States Hayek Louisiana Catherine forty six years
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KGO 810

KGO 810

04:31 min | 3 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KGO 810

"The most important person in Washington possibly United States. Maybe the world, you know, that person's well, let's go to national correspondent and writer extraordinaire, phila- bump who am. I talking about Philip what person holds the key to this huge dilemma of everything from executive power to contempt of congress to of where we're headed in the next year and a half. Honestly, I thought you were interviewing me, and I was very. I kind of don't know. Are we talking about bar we talking about John Roberts? Yes. Yes. John chief Justice Roberts. And I I was thinking of this, and it was actually reading a bio an older bio about him. And and he just his love for United. He was interesting. He'd written a couple pieces about how much he really values the supreme court, and what it stands for you know, he didn't say anything about, you know, the the cavenaugh hearings. But apparently people that know him could see his distress in the way that they came across on both sides, and I look at executive privilege in most of most of us that are old enough to remember Nixon. Remember that that the courts actually didn't knock down executive privilege. They just knocked down the perverting of it. Right. Well, I mean the courts created executive privilege with Nixon. Concept that existed prior to Nixon into scream core in US Nixon. Essentially established it as something that existed in. So you know, I mean, it's sort of a fascinating concept. I think a lot of people understand it sounds like attorney client privilege, which is sort of absolute needs to be withdrawn from it. It's not that at all. It's just sort of presidents way of thing. I don't want to turn this stuff over courts, tell me whether or not I have to and that is what it comes down to it's weird too. Because you know, I mean, if you want to go back way back John Adams wanted the president to because of his excellency, you know, I mean there is there's this idea. I mean that was before Marbury Madison and the in the rise of the courts and everything I mean today, and I feel like having this conversation and using Trump in the same paragraph is, you know, laugh laughable, but to to think about, you know, the importance of balance, and the the guest fiduciary responsibility of the, you know, the investigative arms of congress to have them thwarted like this is I mean is there any chance? I mean what what's the next step? Right. If so. They're holding bar in contempt. What if junior goes in and takes the fifth? Well, I mean, there's a lot of different options. They could hold him and counts as well. I mean, the problem as we've discussed show before it, congressional contempt citation doesn't carry a whole lot of weight unless the department of Justice wants to to actually prosecute someone criminally US attorney wants to do that yachts are good at US twenty won't do that under this department of Justice for pretty obvious reasons. You know, there are also take it to the courts and getting a fine imposed. But it's just it's on tireless useless, but it's close congress. Can you know hasn't power the purse-strings, and they can try and put pressure any ministration by withholding funding things. I would just something that's been discussed. But that's not trivial. That's not a sure thing either. So, you know, there are all these ways in which if someone were to take an action that stymies congress congress do a lot about it and store what's happened. According to experts with them, not smoking is that congress in the presence of sat down the president, recognizing that congress has this responsibility oversight. That check on the executive branch will come up with a compromise. And then they move forward that has always been the case, but that's sort of the default position from that's not how he views the presidency, and I think that's the problem. Yeah. I mean, here's the problem. I see so say the supreme court rules in favor of congress and says, yes, you have to testify. Yes. You have to answer these questions and Trump says no the supreme court doesn't have an army. They don't have a jail, and it still comes down to twenty Republican senators because they can again, nobody in the Justice department can go over bars head, right? I mean, they they can indict somebody on their own. Well, it's a good question on the answer to it. But I mean, those indictments carried out the US attorney levels, I guess see radically possible US attorney in DC could try and initiate indictment. But I think that that would I think that that's see.

congress John chief Justice Roberts executive Nixon US attorney United States Justice department president Philip department of Justice phila writer Washington Trump attorney John Adams Marbury Madison DC
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart

Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart

04:15 min | 3 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on Cape Up with Jonathan Capehart

"The. Hi, Jonathan Kaye part and welcome to this special edition of Cape up. I'm so angry at Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts that Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer of New York, he's angry at the supreme court over its twenty thirteen decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act and ushered in a new era of voter suppression. That's going to make a big push on voting rights. Not only does he want to fix the court. Shelby decision. He also wants automats registration and DC statehood. This was a relatively quick conversation packed with information and high hopes here at all right now. Senator schumer. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. It's good to be here. Jonathan we've known each other probably close to thirty years almost thirty years. And so when you called I said, we'll absolutely I will come and talk to you. And you wanted to talk about something specific I did. And that is our our push on voting rights. Voting rights is one of the it is probably the most fundamental building block of democracy. This is what the founding fathers created. And this is what millions of Americans have fought for hundreds of millions of Americans have died for as well. And so when voting rights is being impinged upon when it's being made much harder. We have to do something about it. So the house passed h r one I am for it. But we're not in the majority in the Senate, hopefully, we will be in twenty twenty one and then we can pass HR one as well. And God willing democratic. The president signed it. But now as leader I'm going to focus on three things above all the first is to undo the damage done by Shelby Shelby was one of the worst court decision's, ever, rendered them. Shelby v holder thirteen correct? I am so angry at Justice Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts. You know, when he came before us, he said, he's going to call balls and strikes. I voted against him. Because I wasn't sure that he would do that. And then, unfortunately, my vote was vindicated and Shelby is one of his three words decisions the others being citizens United which allowed money to cascade into our country and the other being Janice which made it much harder for labor unions to organize but Shelby was particularly despicable. Because what Robert said is there's no more bigotry around the we don't need what's called pre clearance before any locality in seventeen. I think it was states. Fifteen states could change the voting laws. They had a clear it with the voting rights division of the civil rights division. So that they wouldn't be taking away rights. So they repealed this pre-clearance and within a year, ten states. Made it much harder to vote some of them North Carolina. The legislators were actually caught saying to each other. Let's make it harder for African Americans to vote and they particularly aimed as disenfranchisement at people of color African American Hispanic Asian Pacific islander at college students. They made it much aren't devoted college. And at poor people in general and the goal was not. They said, oh, there's a lot of voter fraud. They can't find any hardly any. But what they did do is take away people's rights. So what we wanna do point one is undo the damage in Shelby and do it across the country, not just in the fifteen states, but any state that is going to change its voting laws in a significant way. It has to be pre cleared if there's any sign that it might be discriminatory. Second thing we want to do is have automatic registration. There are fifty million people in America, not registered. Now. That's a disgrace automatic registration is very simple. It says whenever you touch any level of government, not just federal. But if you touch, Medicaid, if you touch the department of motor vehicles, you are automats registered, and that will.

Shelby Shelby Chief Justice Roberts Senator schumer Jonathan Kaye Senate New York president North Carolina America Medicaid Robert Janice
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

05:37 min | 3 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KCRW

"It has chief Justice Roberts ordinarily, a conservative in earlier abortion cases has been hostile to abortion rights, joining the four liberal members of the court the block the law knocked to let it go into effect. If does suggest that Roberts is not assure vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. He's been slightly more nuanced on this. Then I think some people expected in this case Roberts gave us a surprise. Adam. How do you understand? What led chief Justice Roberts to make this surprises season? Well, it's a little hard to figure out what in his background led him to make the decision because he is a classic example of a product of the modern conservative legal movement. Highly credentialed Harvard college Harvard Law School prestigious clerkship at various courts, including the US supreme court clerking for Justice later chief Justice William h Rehnquist stints in the Reagan White House in Reagan Justice department, deputy solicitor general in the George H W Bush administration. And so when Sandra Day O'Connor announces that she's going to retire in two thousand five he is a front runner for the job. One of the most consequential decisions. The president makes is his appointment of a Justice to the supreme court. And ultimately gets appointed by George W Bush who is persuaded that he will carry out their Republican party's preferred outcomes in contested supreme court cases. So in his confirmation hearings for chief Justice, what kind of judge does John Roberts indicate that he will be well he presents himself. But this is not unusual as someone who simply going to apply the law to the facts and not bring any ideology or politics or personal views to the task, but merely and then and now loves this metaphor judges are like unpire umpires don't make the rules. They apply them the role of an empire. And the judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the fire his point being that he would not be ideological. He wouldn't be a partisan. Right. He took the view that a judge's job is divorced from politics. And I will remember that. It's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat and that a Republican appointee should not come to a different conclusion than democratic appointee. Because the law is the law. So once Roberts is confirmed does that appear to be how he operates as an impartial umpire. I'm sure that he thinks he is. And I'm sure he's operating imperfect. Good faith, but the voting patterns suggests something different. In the big cases the cases that in a lasting way transformed American society. He was a reliable vote in five four cases with the conservative majority on the court. So that for instance, in two thousand eight he votes with the majority in district of Columbia against Heller where the supreme court ruled that the residents of Washington DC do have a right to go ownership which revolutionized the second amendment law and says that there is an individual right to keep him bear arms in twenty ten. He's part of the five Justice conservative majority in the citizens United campaign finance decision. That's the decision stating that when it comes to directly influencing elections corporations can spread their caches freely as they wish that money is speech and corporations have the same rights as people when it comes to spending it. So in the big cases, he may think he's an empire. But they're putting up some runs on the scoreboard. And by the. You mean, the conservatives the right side of the court. Yeah. But our view of chief Justice Roberts is transformed in two thousand twelve in a challenge to the Affordable Care where the expectation is that the law is going to be struck down. Or if it's going to be saved. It's going to be saved by Justice Kennedy. But it turns out an epic decision. And this is it as the justices voted five to four to uphold President Obama's controversial healthcare plan. This stunning ruling sent shock waves across the nation. We have chief Justice Roberts plus two four liberals saving the Affordable Care Act. The shirker of this ruling chief Justice John Roberts joined the courts, liberal justices and saved the president's health care plan by in effect rewriting. I think she Justice Roberts officially said to the tea party, you need to go back and read the constitution. So liberals all of a sudden started to love him said, he was a statesman. The conservatives were very very dismissive thought. This was kind of treason were deeply disappointed because he was so much of their crowd. How could one of their own on the supreme court side with liberals on the court to uphold the constitutionality of the democratic presidents healthcare plan. Glenn Beck is now selling t shirts. We'll get it at one with Roberts face above the word. Coward Justice Roberts turned out to be an absolute disaster. He turned out to be an absolute disaster because he gave us ObamaCare..

Justice John Roberts Justice Roberts supreme court Justice Kennedy Justice department Roberts Justice Justice William h Rehnquist president Heller Harvard Law School George W Bush Roe Republican party Adam Glenn Beck Sandra Day O'Connor Reagan White House President Obama
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

08:58 min | 3 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Him. Because it was unconstitutional. A wealth tax would be unconstitutional as well. We've an income tax not a wealth tax under the sixteenth amendment and the other tax provisions of the constitution doesn't give Elizabeth Warren any relief. Gentlemen's, correct. And that's why I'm spending a little time explaining it. So what she's proposing is a disaster. Also unconstitutional, but I don't have faith in our courts anymore. Certainly not most of them. I don't know what they're capable of quite frankly. I thought ObamaCare was a clear violation not only of the commerce clause. But the taxation clause landmark legal foundation when I was president. I'm not president. Now. I'm chairman with a great president there Pete Hutchison. But when I was the filing that we make challenged ObamaCare as an unconstitutional tax, which it is. Which forced the chief Justice to rewrite the law and rewrite the rationale behind the law, despite the fact that Obama and democrat members of congress who wrote it in secret said, it's not a tax. It's not a tax. And then chief Justice Roberts says it is a tax. It is a tax. Good job there. John, johnny. Let us go to Kylie Legrand. Oregon the great KVIL go. Hey, mark. I was just wondering why don't we go to a straight across the board sales tax. No matter how you get your money. You spend your money, you're paying your taxes on it. There's no loopholes you get your money from drug dealings, whatever you're paying tax on it. Most people wouldn't get it from drug dealing. I get your point. I'm in favor of it with one caveat, you gotta get rid of the sixteenth amendment. I idolize you would have that flat tax, plus an income tax. Oh, yes. That's true. That's true. That would be one that would be in my opinion of fair taxation for support number one a flat sales tax. I really do. Secondarily, I can sport a flat income tax. Which you could still do under the constitution. But these people are talking about ninety percent rates. You know, we're so far apart and they get almost no pushback. You're right. If they're proposing ninety percent, we should propose a flat tax of eleven twelve thirteen percent for everybody. Right. Exactly. All right. My friend. Thank you, very much caroliina wausau, Wisconsin, the great W S A you go. Hi and legal immigrants from. Oh. Congratulations. Thank you. This country. I really love and like you. All the time. Thank you. But anyway, this is my point I come from. On the same Mike grumpy and December let me let me explain this. Don't hang up. Chilly, ladies and gentlemen. One from somewhat of not summit, a hardcore socialist eight to a military hunter. Then they eliminated the military hunter. They went to a Representative democracy with capitalism. And now the reverse course back to socialism, isn't that what you're talking about. Yes. They're destroying it again. But this is my point. Once she did cost a winter Teela for a month. I'm saying. People between reach I'm poor. Point. Deterrent comment. I give people. So what these people that hawkeness mum? But. Well, how much money do you have? While you're right. What you're saying is what they're looking at is. Right wet. What do you have rather than how did you get it? Some people are smarter some people work harder. Some people are just a just better at it. It doesn't mean anybody stealing. It doesn't mean that we're an unequal society. It just means we're a society of individuals who do individual things. Nobody's they want. Everybody has a role. I'm happy. You have to have more money. Relationship. It's Harley is you're right. Kathy. Are they happy in Cuba? Are they are they happy in Venezuela? No. And you know, what this point is very very important and Jon Voight on my talk show made the point about happiness, and I thought it was really outstanding life liberty and happiness. The pursuit that pursuit of happiness. Right there in the declaration. And he said when he went to Russia many many years ago, and you looked at the people they weren't happy. You look at the buildings. These aren't you know, these are these are old decaying buildings when you look at the automobile same thing, and he said to him. That's what the the founders in the declaration of independence, meant life, liberty and happiness, and I think pursuit of happiness. And I think that's what you're saying. Yes. And everybody has some people will have more funding. So what that's exactly right. Wrong with that. There's a billionaire who lives. I guess within five ten miles of where I live, maybe even closer. I don't know. Exactly. If it has no effect on me whatsoever. If he's a billionaire or a Popper, it doesn't affect my life. It doesn't make my life better or worse. I have to decide what I'm going to do what fulfils me how to take care of my family, and my wife and what I'm supposed to do. That's the focus rather than have politicians drop in who don't know don't know, our circumstance don't know anything about us and have these broad brush plans that you know, you need this and you need that. And so forth. They are politicians. They sit down with paid hacks to come up with phrases and words and programs and signs and all the rest of it. They're playing their managing us. Thank you for your call. I really appreciate it. Let's go to Zach Akron, Ohio on the Mark Levin app. Go Mr. Levin, it's an honor. Thanks for taking my call. You got it. I think the wealth tax really struck a chord with me because there's somebody training to be a CPA. I should I guess supported the same white lawyers. Always don't support tort reform, but it's really Samir form of Detrick. Servitude. If you will because you're being taxed on things that might not even be generated income that you argue paid with with money that was tasked. But I think the Democrats are really don't care, by the way. So is the inheritance tax you've already paid all your taxes on it? And now you pass away want to pass on your farm or your your liquid assets to your kids to your grandkids to whomever, you want they not so fast. We're gonna take seventy seven percent of it and the estate tax for in the real estate taxes. You know, I mean, you're not seeing any money coming from your house. But yet you're paying for each year. But I don't really think they care about the way. This woman cereal is I think it's more. They wanna get to taxation system like Europe value added tax tax companies, they can tax people more and more. But yet they can hide it through different. Yeah. That's important. They can hide it. So when you purchase something you don't realize at twenty three percent, or whatever it is of what you've just spent goes to the government. And I think you made a good point a while back if we got rid of the withholding tax. I think you would see almost an uprising size of the tea party back in back in two thousand ten where people truly knew what they were people gotta fill at the end of each year for what they owed rather than having money on. I've been arguing that for years. All right. My friend. I'm up against the clock. Thank you very much. Excellent. Call the calls have been excellent except one no one should feel unsafe at home period..

president Mark Levin Elizabeth Warren Obama congress Europe Pete Hutchison Kylie Legrand Jon Voight Wisconsin Justice Roberts KVIL chairman Cuba Mike grumpy
"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KNST AM 790

KNST AM 790

09:00 min | 3 years ago

"chief justice roberts" Discussed on KNST AM 790

"They dropped it. They dropped it. Because it was unconstitutional. A wealth tax would be unconstitutional as well. We have an income tax not a wealth tax under the sixteenth amendment and the other tax provisions of the constitution doesn't give Elizabeth Warren any relief. Gentlemen's, correct. And that's why I'm spending a little bit of time explaining it. So what she's proposing is a disaster. Talso unconstitutional, but I don't have faith in our courts anymore. Certainly not most of them. I don't know what they're capable of quite frankly. I thought ObamaCare was a clear violation not only of the commerce clause. But the taxation clause tech landmark legal foundation when I was president. I'm not president. Now. I'm chairman we have a great president there. Pete hutchison. But when I was the filing that we may challenged ObamaCare as an unconstitutional tax, which it is. Which forced the chief Justice to rewrite the law and rewrite the rationale behind the law, despite the fact that Obama and democrat members of congress who wrote it in secret said, it's not a tax. It's not a tax. And then chief Justice Roberts says it is a tax. It is a tax. The job there. John, johnny. Let us go to Kylie Legrand. Oregon the great KVIL go. Hey, mark. I was just wondering why don't we go to a straight across the board sales tax. No matter how you get your money. You spend your money, you're paying your taxes on it. There's no loopholes. You get your money from drug, dealing whatever you're paying taxes on it. Well, most people wouldn't get it from drug dealing. I get your point. I'm in favor of it with one caveat, you got to get rid of the sixteenth amendment. I idolize wise, you would have that flat tax, plus an income tax. Yes, that's true. That's true. But that would be one, you know, that would be in my opinion of fair hack station for support number one flat sales tax. I really do. Secondarily, I conspired a flat income tax. Which you could still do under the constitution. But these people are talking about ninety percent rates. You know, we're so far apart and they get almost no pushback. You're right. If they're proposing ninety percent, we should propose a flat tax of eleven twelve thirteen percent for everybody. Right. Exactly. All right. My friend. Thank you, very much caroliina wausau, Wisconsin, the great W S A you go. Hi, mike. Legal immigrants from. Oh. Congratulations. Thank you. Country. I really love and like you do. All the time. Even thank you. But anyway, this is my point. I I come from. And they did the same in my country in December. Let me let me explain this. Don't hang up. Chilly, ladies and gentlemen. One from somewhat of a not summit a hardcore socialist state to a military hunter. Then they eliminated the military junta. They went to a Representative democracy with capitalism. And now, the reversing course back to socialism, isn't that what you're talking about. Yes. They're destroying it again. Yeah. But this is my point. I was once she didn't cost a winter Teela for a month or they. Ninety Dayton flight people between rich and poor. Point people have different comments. I believe. So what? More money people hawkeness, man. But how can you? How much money? Do you have? While you're right. What you're saying is what they're looking at is. Right wet. What do you have rather than how did you get it? Some people are smarter some people work harder. Some people are just better at it. It doesn't mean anybody stealing. It doesn't mean that we're an unequal society. It just means we're a society of individuals who do individual things nobody wants everybody has a role. I'm hopping it doesn't mean you have to have more money. Happy relationship. This is horrible, right? Happy. Are they happy in Cuba? Are they are they happy in Venezuela? No. And you know, what this point is very very important and Jon Voight on my talk show made the point about happiness, and I thought it was really outstanding life liberty and happiness. The pursuit the pursuit of happiness. Right there in the declaration. And he said when he went to Russia many many years ago, and you look at the people they weren't happy. You look at the buildings. These aren't you know, these these are all the king buildings when you look at the automobile same thing, and he said to him. That's what the the founders and the declaration of independence, meant life, liberty and happiness, and I think pursuit of happiness. And I think that's what you're saying to and everybody has some people will have more funding. So so what that's exactly right. You know, there's a billionaire who lives I guess within five ten miles of where I live, maybe even closer. I don't know. Exactly. If it has no effect on me whatsoever. If he's a billionaire or a Popper, it doesn't affect my life. It doesn't make my life better or worse. I have to decide what I'm going to do what fulfils me how to take care of my family, and my wife and what I'm supposed to do. That's the focus rather than have politicians drop in who don't know us don't know, our circumstance don't know anything about us and have these broad brush plans that you know, you need this, and you need that and so forth, and they are politicians. They sit down with paid hacks to come up with phrases and words and programs, and and signs and all the rest of it. They're playing us. They're managing us. Thank you for your call. I really appreciate it. Let us go to Zach Akron, Ohio on the Mark Levin app. Go Mr. Levin, it's an honor. Thanks for taking my call. You got it. I think the wealth tax really struck a chord with me because if somebody training to be CPI, should I guess supported the same white lawyers always don't support tort reform, but it's really to me former in desert servitude. If you will because you're being taxed on things that might not even be generated income that you already paid with with money that was, but I think the Democrats are really don't care, by the way is the inheritance tax. You've already paid all your taxes on it. And now you pass away you want to pass on your farm or your liquid assets to your kids to your grandkids to whomever, you want they not so fast. We're gonna take seventy seven percent of it. State actor in the real estate taxes. You know, I mean, you're not seeing any money coming from your house. But yet you're paying for it each year. But I don't really think they care about the way this will materialize. I think it's more. They want to get to taxation system, like Europe value added tax. So they can tech companies. They can tax people more and more. But yet they can hide it through different. Yeah. That's important. They can hide it. So when you purchase something you don't realize at twenty three percent, or whatever it is of what you've just spent goes to the government. And I think you made a good point a while back if we got rid of withholding tax, I think you would see almost an uprising the size of the tea party back in back in two thousand ten where people truly knew what they were people got a Bill at the end of each year for what they owed rather than having money on. I've been arguing that for years. All right. My friend. I'm up against the clock. Thank you very much. Excellent. Call the calls have been excellent except one doofus no one should feel unsafe at home period..

president Mark Levin Elizabeth Warren Europe Kylie Legrand Jon Voight Pete hutchison Wisconsin Justice Roberts KVIL Obama Venezuela Cuba congress chairman Dayton