35 Burst results for "Cockney Barrett"
"cockney barrett" Discussed on KSFO-AM
"Have any other songs? Start seaming singing like that when I'm driving in the car there there, Dear Boy, Google the lyrics to that boy. So they mentioned in this little wrap of the Supreme Court. That has been quite the tumultuous year you get RBG passing away, Amy Cockney Barrett filling your vacant seat. Of course, Democrats screaming that she was The reincarnation of the handmade Taylor's some such nonsense as usual, and then you get you. Oh oh, that's right. And there's been a recent two second round of insisting that the court be packed with more justices. And poor Steven Brier. He's a liberal, but he's an old liberal, so liberal America's howling at him to step down so President Biden can Can appoint TOC successor before Biden croaks or, you know, or he loses the next election. Appoint known Chomsky is a Supreme Court justice. E Don't think Biden's gonna be around for the next election, but it's very so it's one of the commissioner. Was that a threat? No, off course not know he's old as hell. He did did that We only will not run again. Guarantee Arch. May you thank you. Oh, but it's funny how the Supreme Court they announced the cases that are gonna be herded. Everybody makes a big deal and sometimes the oral arguments or heard and people that jabber about it that you know the chattering classes and then you forget That they've agreed to hear some of these rules. Some of these cases there are some blockbusters that are going to be handed down in June. Remember the old Sin Joon? Yes, yes, Clearly we are They did the Supreme Court the unleashed bomb after bomb after bomb as they head for the hills. And when is it the end of June? ER in June. Sometimes. Does anybody else somebody check anyway? Here? The five biggest case is still awaiting a decision before they go on their summer recess. Number one voting rule laws. Arizona Republican Party Democratic National Committee have been feuding over ballot laws since before the 2016 election. Riney renewed attention obviously after the 2020 election. Long question requires two things first is that a ballot is thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than the one matching the voters home address. The second is a ban on ballot harvesting California Are you hearing this? Ah, practice in which third party carriers collect absentee ballots and deliver them for counting. So the soups they're going to rule on that. That could be huge. Wanna talk about that more later. The idea of it any measure? To ensure the fidelity of the election is voter suppression. My friends. You need to be ready to counter that argument. They call everything voter suppression moving along. College college athlete compensation. The Supreme Court is going to rule on that. Well, that could change a college sports overnight. Yeah, And you know if I were a betting, man, Wait a minute. I am. I'll bet they rule in favor of the athletes saying that you know you can't deny them the right to earn a living. You know, off their name, their likely or there. What is that? What, my love their likeness. Let's see. Number three big giant case, Religious liberty and gay rights court's legalization of gay marriage in 2015 gave rise to a whole genre of cases in which religious institutions faced off against gay and transgender nondiscrimination regulations in this one. The city of Philadelphia sued Catholic social services of foster care agency runway. The archdiocese after a newspaper investigation found that the group would not place Children with gay couples. The court is likely to rule against Philadelphia after the justices showed skepticism of the city's arguments during oral arguments, etcetera who knows we'll see number four giant case the fate of Obama care No, this is not really we run Obama from 2020 2019 2018 2017 26 by listening to the best of you are, as a matter of fact, welcome. Uh, Bob, above. Uh, this is the future of the affordable care act became a contentious issue. After Trump appointed Barrett Democrats argued, Sweet be the decisive vote. Um, they act they're asking whether the individual mandate is unconstitutional. On gather than straight down. The whole act is a coalition of states led by Texas asked. The justices discussed the possibility of severing the individual mandate from the rest of the act, allowing Obamacare to stand. Not sure which way and nobody sure which one which way? This is going to go, but it will be badly reported when it is decided. And finally, the F bomb spouting cheerleader. We got pissed because she didn't make the varsity team and off campus online unleashed and F bomb laden land. I've hired her as my spokesperson. She's great. This made it to the Supreme Court. It did. Yeah. Yes. Oh, the extent to which free speech rights apply to students outside of school. Um It's it. It's all about speech and school safety and security and decorum. And the rest of it is this. How far can it go? Is this gonna have further ramifications, for instance, like the workplace? You said things away from work on your own private Twitter feed. Oh, wow, That is a good question. I need to read more about the case. Um, it is freedom of speech versus school security and decorum. And ah lot of those arguments could be extended the workplace. Huh? Interesting point. Thank you. Um, we got another little news thing here. That just happened, I think is interesting regarding China. Um And the N ba bi partisan Commission asking NBA players to sever some ties with China fill you in on the details on that, but you know that was we continue to take steps that direction. Dr Gottlieb is out talking about various cities into dropping their mask mandates and how that's a good thing. Luckily, I live in a safe state where we're gonna keep our mask mandate throughout the entire state. Even where there's no covert right. Another several weeks. Just good and sure. Yes, the laws passed by the Legislature. No, I'm sorry. Declared by an individual must be followed as we're following the science of last summer. Um, but all that on the way, Armstrong and get it. Hey,.
"cockney barrett" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Young. I'm Peter O'Dowd. This is here. And now today, advocates for abortion rights are wondering about the future of Roe v. Wade. That landmark 1973 ruling will be put to a test after the Supreme Court decided That in its next term, it will here in abortion case out of Mississippi. It will be the first abortion case to come before the courts. News 6 to 3 Conservative majority. Joining us Now by Skype is Mary Ziegler. She's a legal historian and a professor of law at Florida State University. Mary Welcome. Thanks for having me. Sure. So this case, it's a challenge to a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions. After 15 weeks of pregnancy, it hinges on the question of just station of I ability. Do you explain what that means and why it's significant in this case. Sure so viability in a nutshell. Is that point in pregnancy when survival is possible outside of the womb, So that's most typically around the 24th week, although sometimes with her like medical efforts, survival is possible as early as the 22nd week. What is significant is because ever since 1973. The Supreme Court has said that states may no not ban on abortion before viability, and that's been kind of a cornerstone of the court's abortion rights. Juris prudence Now Mississippi's law, which bans abortion, it 15 weeks, obviously does so well before viability, and that's the point in a way because Mississippi wants to force the court. Either to reverse Roe v. Wade entirely, or at least to get rid of viability as the point at which abortion dancer possible, Okay, and that's why supporters of abortion rights and opponents are looking at this case. As a potential milestone, and that it could mean the end of Roe v. Wade. Do you think it could be that historic? Absolutely. I think there's no reason the court would have taken this case unless it either wants to reverse Roe or reverse part of road right. There's literally no way you can uphold this Mississippi law without at least rewriting the rules or rewriting what Rose stands for Andre. Certainly, if the court is willing to go that far, there's no reason to think they'll stop there. Even if this is not the case that returns row, I think the writing is on the wall. Down the road. And so what are the range of options that we could be looking at? Either the court could overturn Roe or somehow significantly limited exactly? Yes. So in the past in 1992, the court got rid of a big parts of what road had stood for basically the rules that would apply to determine the constitutionality of abortion laws. Kept what the court framed as the sort of essential building so grow and there were two of those one that there was a right to choose abortion into that that right applies before viability, So it's possible that the court could say actually, there's only one essential holding, and that's that There's a right to choose abortion. But this whole viability thing is a side note that we can get rid of. That would still be consequential, of course, because if viability is not the dividing line, it's not clear. What is right. Is it six weeks and pregnancy is some red states have proposed in Promoting heartbeat laws. Is it fetal pain? Which Mississippi argues, is there? No, I meant right. Can states just ban abortion throughout pregnancy? We just don't know what the court will do if I ability is gone, so it kind of will open a Pandora's box. Even if, in theory, the court has preserved some aspect of Robie Wade And this would be the first abortion case to come before Justice Amy Cockney Barrett, the conservatives on this court of also shown signs that they're willing to overturn precedent. What is the new makeup of the court mean for this case? One thing it means is that we have certainly have a new swing Justice Last summer, the court's first abortion case with a conservative majority made it seem as if Chief Justice John Roberts would be that swing vote, and Roberts at least last summer, seemed reluctant to Turn his back too quickly on the Supreme Court's precedents. But if the court is taking this case, there's reason to believe that either buried or Cavanaugh, we're both will be willing to go at a quicker clip and rolling back abortion rights than Roberts might have been prepared to do. It's safe to say if you're a supporter of abortion rights, you're feeling nervous today. Absolutely. I mean, I think I'm probably a little bit shocked because I mean, the Supreme Court has sat on this case since September of last year. And so I think many of us were expecting the court not to take this case and that we would maybe getting angry. Dissenting opinion from Clarence Thomas. Complaining about their kicking the can down the road. So the fact that the court not only agreed to take this face but took up such an explosive question so quickly will definitely make supporters of the working rights feel pretty uncomfortable. Today. 11 States have trigger bands in place. Now that means abortions will instantly Be outlawed if the court overturns Roe, so big picture. What do abortion rights look like in this country? If that happens, according to the Guttmacher Institute, another researchers, we estimate that about half the states would ban all our most abortions. April we're gone and one way or another, either through trigger laws or other statutes. There would be, of course, progressive states like Massachusetts that would expand access to abortion and probably make it easier to the extent possible for people from out of state to access abortion. And then there would be battleground states like Florida and Pennsylvania, where there would be lots of money and lots of energy invested to determine what abortion policy looks like. Of course, even in the Supreme Court, it wouldn't be over because the endgame for abortion opponents has never been allowing states to ban abortion because, of course, if you are a rightto life supporter, you think that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. If it's happening in Massachusetts or California as much as if it's happening in Alabama, so I would expect Even in the Supreme Court that you would see abortion opponents coming back and saying abortion itself is unconstitutional and therefore cannot be allowed anywhere. In short, the fight will continue, no matter what we see, and the kind of patchwork from state to state on the differences between states will become even sugar. Mary Ziegler is a legal historian and professor of law at Florida State University. Thank you. Thanks so much. Well, we're in the ninth day of violence between Israel and Hamas, the militant group that governs Palestinians in the Gaza Strip..
"cockney barrett" Discussed on WBEZ Chicago
"Live from NPR news. I'm Corbett Coleman, the U. S. Supreme Court is taking up a major abortion case. It opens the door to reconsider the Roe versus Wade president that legalized abortion nationwide. This case involves a challenge to a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. NPR's Sarah McCammon has more social conservatives have been working for decades to overturn Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court precedent guaranteeing the right to an abortion. Now, with three justices nominated by former president Trump, including the most recent edition of Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. They're increasingly optimistic about that goal. The Supreme Court says it will take up one key question in the Mississippi case whether all abortion bands before viability are unconstitutional. Under previous president, the court has guaranteed the right for women to choose abortion before a fetus can live outside the womb, while giving states more leeway to restrict the procedure later in pregnancy. Sarah McCammon. NPR NEWS Washington Israeli warplanes struck Gaza overnight with airstrikes in fresh fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas fighters Hamas has continued to fire rockets into Israel. Israeli officials say they're warning Palestinian civilians before buildings are attacked. But in a barrage of Israeli strikes on Sunday, at least 42 people were killed in Gaza, including 10 Children. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reiterated President Biden's position on Israel's right to defend itself. Israel has the right to defend itself. There is no equivalence between a terrorist group indiscriminately firing rockets at civilians. In a country defending its people. Those attacks. There were numerous demonstrations over the weekend in several countries in support of Palestinians. Demonstrations were held in Canada, Germany and Britain. In the United States. There were demonstrations in several cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago in New York. At least 12 people have been killed as a powerful cycle and turns off India's west coast. NPR's Lauren Frayer reports from Mumbai where Cove in 19 patients are being evacuated to higher ground about 150,000 people have been evacuated from low lying areas.
"cockney barrett" Discussed on KCRW
"I'm Dave Mattingly, the U. S. Supreme Court says it's agreed to hear a challenge to Mississippi's ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. High Court says it will limit itself to the question of whether all pre viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. This is the first abortion case to be looked at since Justice Amy Cockney Barrett joined the court, resulting in a 6 to 3 Conservative majority. Death row inmates in South Carolina must now choose between the electric chair and a firing squad. Under a new law. The state hasn't carried out an execution in 10 years because of a lack of lethal injection drugs. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israeli air strikes in Gaza targeting Hamas may continue for some time. NPR's Jackie Northam reports on the latest fighting. This latest round of airstrikes targeted main roads and electrical lines servicing a key power plant in Gaza City. Just a day earlier, Israel launched a devastating attack on Gaza, which killed more than three dozen Palestinians, including many women and Children. Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel. This is some of the worst fighting between Hamas and Israel in years, and neither side appears to be bending to growing international calls for a cease fire. On Wall Street. The Dow was down 108 points. This is NPR news from Washington from KCRW. I'm Cherry Glazer was state and local headlines. Thousands of pro Palestinian protesters.
"cockney barrett" Discussed on KDOW
"Grease. The president is planning to propose nearly doubling taxes on capital gains to almost 40% for people earning more than $1 million and his top economic aid, Brian D. Says that will affect only 3/10 of 1% of U. S households. That's about 500,000 households in the country that we're talking about. The White House says the president wants to use the tax increases to pay for his American Families Plan proposal. Red Clugston Washington University of California San Francisco, officials say a man in his thirties is recuperating after developing a rare blood clot in his leg within two weeks of receiving the one shot Johnson and Johnson vaccine. U. S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of Friday, had reported the condition in 15 people, all women. After eight million doses were administered nationally. The Supreme Court's agreed to hear an appeal to expand gun rights across the country in a New York case over the right to carry a firearm in public for self defense case marks the court's first foray into gun rights since Justice Amy Cockney Barrett came onboard making a 63 conservative majority. The justices said Monday they will review a lower court ruling that upheld New York's restrictive gun permit law. The action follows several mass shootings in recent weeks. The high Court had turned down review of the same issue in June before Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is death. New York is among eight states that limit who has the right to carry a gun in public. The others are. California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island. Julie Walker, New York Wall Street down Futures are up 33 points. NASDAQ's in the Green by 17 and the S and P. 500 is ahead.
Barrett writes first majority Supreme Court opinion in FOIA dispute
"And Supreme Court Justice Amy Amy Cockney Baron has delivered her first majority opinion for the nation's highest court. This is a case involving the Federal Freedom of Information Act, a PC's Elizabeth Scholesy with more from Washington, in her first opinion as a U. S Supreme Court Justice Amy Cockney Barrett rights on behalf of a 72 majority, saying federal government agencies can refuse to disclose documents related to internal deliberations. As part of an exemption in the Freedom of Information Act. The case involved the environmental group Sierra Club trying to obtain documents from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Steven Brier were the two dissents. Elizabeth Halsey. ABC NEWS
Republicans in Nearly Every State Push For Voting Restrictions in the Aftermath of 2020 Election
"Every state push new voting restrictions in the aftermath of the 2020 election, the U. S. Supreme Court today heard a major case to decide how those rules should be judged under federal civil rights law. Will the court uphold to provision of in Arizona voting law that Democrats argue violate the historic Voting Rights Act? Here's NBC's Alex Push a Well, so the U. S. Supreme Court is looking essentially at a section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that's meant to combat racial discrimination in state election laws. So after the 2020 presidential election, we've seen a flurry of Republican state legislators that have made laws that essentially have kind of made it harder to vote. This is, according to the Brennan center, They tallied about 215 bills across the country. But so this particular case did the Supreme Court is hearing is added. Arizona and justices Air grappling how to interpret Section Two of the act, which says any measures that result in the denial or bridge mint of voting rights on account of race or color. Is illegal. Now. The details of this Arizona case there, too, to new laws and one deals with how ballots or cat they disqualified Ballots cast out of precinct, Uh, The other Arizona law prohibits third party collection of mail ballots for delivery to state officials. So the court must decide how and what tests should be used to to determine whether or not this violates that section two. Well, Alex. I know there is an opinion express that these regulations make it harder to vote. But then there will be others that will say no. These regulations will ensure against voter fraud. So you have two different Perspectives on these regulations City? Absolutely. And so I mean, I think this this is going to be you know, the biggest tell for the legacy of former President Trump like appointing conservative justices to the court. The court is now mostly conservative, right. And so we're already starting to see the effects of that and in the arguing on day so I can tell you that earlier today Got this bread cabinet. Also justice any Amy Cockney Barrett are saying that essentially, you know, they believe that these laws don't necessarily violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965 where you had Justice Sonia sort of my yours? Who's who's arguing otherwise. But we're months away from a decision in this case, but early on, it looks as though these particular laws out of Arizona will stay intact and I'll tell you why. Um, even the Biden administration has conceded that they may not have run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. It seemed as though that can mean the court, which is majority conservative, also sees it that way. Again. There's a lot of time between now and when this case is a question to be decided, decided, which is the end of June, But but early on, it seems as though uh, these laws will probably be upheld. Okay. It's a B C's Alex per shade in Washington. Thank you, Alex for your time today. Thank you, Kitty. All right. 6 50 our final
Alabama cancels execution after court requires pastor
"In Alabama is on hold. The U. S. Supreme Court says the prisoners pastor must be allowed inside the death the death chamber during the lethal injection. Kyle Gass it with Troy. Public Radio says the inmate had been scheduled to die yesterday for killing the sister of a police officer in Birmingham, Willoughby. Smith was sentenced to death in 1991 and asked that his pastor be with him at the time of his execution. Smith said his pastor would provide comfort by quote, holding his hand praying with him in his final moments and easing the transition between the worlds of the living and the dead. The state of Alabama denied Smith's request, citing safety concerns and a new policy, which bars spiritually advisers of any kind from being in the room. A lower appeals court overturned that decision and the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court We're joined by conservative Justice Amy Cockney Barrett and upholding the injunction and stay of execution. For NPR News. I'm Kyle Gass it in Montgomery. Authorities in Germany and
"cockney barrett" Discussed on KCRW
"So the suit here is saying, Look, Fox news you had people on you knew what they were going to save both your employees, even if they were on the opinion side and the gas into again. We're not looking at title we're looking at was the statement itself a statement of fact, and that's what can give rise to a liability here. Although Fox News is a media company, so You know some people who might not agree with Fox news or with this whole argument that which is alive that the election was stolen are a little leery about this kind of lawsuit going forward on, you know, in terms of protecting the press and from First Amendment grounds. Oh, absolutely. I mean, we're seeing so many more defamation suits than we used to, and against the entity, Thies against the groups that as you say, we should be most worried about when it comes to a defamation suit. Look, we have a really strong first remember tradition in our country defamation by definition, punishes speech. Now on the other side, we're really at a breaking point in terms of determining where the protection for the First Amendment ends, particularly when it comes to disinformation, and it may be depending on what happens in this case. This is the new frontier for fighting disinformation that it's these court suits, and it's trying to push private companies like Twitter to shut down accounts that it's not legislation. It's not regulation. It's asking judges to say this falls within defamation, and so this really, I think is a big bellwether case. Interesting. OK, well, let's talk about the Supreme Court, partially striking down California's restrictions on indoor religious services, and the justices were split on this, but they let endorse services go forward with a 25% restriction. They're not allowed. People aren't allowed to sing or chant. And there was a lot of debate over over that within the conservative wing of the court. Tell us about that really quickly. Yes. Oh, really quickly there. Nine justices. There are five different opinions. And what you saw from the conservative side is either churches will give you everything you want. Meaning none of these three restrictions air Okay or churches? You know what You can have people inside. But you need to go through certain measures that capacity limits and the limit on singing and chanting. And that middle ground ultimately is what won the day really interesting to see, though on the spectrum of the conservative justices, where everybody came out really interesting to see Justice Amy Cockney Barrett's first written and signed opinion, where she does actually tread somewhat. In the conservative spectrum, a middles a middle of fresh right and she is a conservative Catholic, so one would have thought she would have cited more with the conservatives on this fully But she certainly left the door open to do so. So this was hardly a moderate opinion, I would say, But she did say, Look, you have to prove it, she said. I'm waiting for more evidence. If you treat churches in a more burdensome way than you treat secular institutions. This is not okay. So her quote unquote middle ground was just I want to see more before I make a decision. Jessica Levinson, law professor at Little, a law school in a regular legal eagle..
"cockney barrett" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"Faith on Lee, the second cast like to be elected president of the United States. Give us a little background on what what's unfolding right now? Well, wolf. What we're seeing right now is President elect Biden turning once again to his Catholic faith, which has really been a mainstay throughout his life. As you mentioned he will be the second Catholic to become president, following in the footsteps of President John F. Kennedy. Yes, CNN, you know, gushing over hell. Catholic, Joe Biden is we've come a long way since the war on the little Sisters of the poor haven't way You think it's going to go after them again? You think is gonna tell the little sisters that they need birth control. They have to have to have a word offer. Birth control thing is gonna happen. This is just amazing. I mean, the gushing and now by the way now, religion is an asset. Yeah, religion and thinking it's not. It's not compromising. We don't have to, like we'll have to check whether or not you have some sort of dogmatic adherence to your face. That's going toe interrupt your ability to It'd be a good leader in our society. There's no expectation that you're part of a cult right like that's like the subtext. All the coverage of Amy Cockney Barrett when she was coming up for the Supreme Court was like Oh, is she going to actually be loyal to the Constitution or she going to take orders from the pope? Don't let lives loudly with her, right? Isn't that giant Feinstein? That's right and then And in fact, I think JFK actually went through a round of this year's coming up that this idea that somehow he's going to be beholden to the Vatican. None of that with With by no AD Biden. It's like he's the most without. Religious person to ever hold the office. You know, ever it was like what Didn't they go after? Didn't Kamila Harris go after? Brett Kavanaugh for belonging to the Knights of Columbus because she said, it was ah, all male society. Yes, somebody did. I think it may have been comma. I'm trying to remember without my head you hold on. I have. Um Okay. Well, wait Since 1993. You've been a member of the Knights of Columbus and all male society, comprised primarily of Catholic men in 2016. Carl Anderson, leader of the Knights of Columbus, described abortion as a legal regime that has resulted in more than 40 million deaths. Mr. Anderson went on to say that abortions the killing of the innocent on a massive scale. Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman's right to choose when you join the organization? Yes, I'm Catholics. Wherever those questions for Biden. Biden is not subjected to this and said he gets Wolf Blitzer gushing is like this is the most of our question. Ever take the office. He goes to church. Do you know he goes to church? Apparently very regularly. This is something that he doesn't make a big show of going to church. But listen on Friday Listen to White House press secretary Jim sake, talking about Biden and going to church this first weekend in the White House. Does he still plan to go to Mass every weekend? And has he picked a parish here in the Washington area replaced with implants? The job? Well, his faith is certainly quite important to him, as you know from covering him and I would expect that he attends church continues to attend. Church very regularly. He has not selected a church yet, But if and when that happens, we'll certainly keep you updated. Joe Biden has been in church that has been in Washington D. C. Since I was in kindergarten, right? He's been in Washington D C forever. Decades, decades and decades, right? He hasn't picked a pair of shit for maths. Where's he been going for the last 50 years? It's a big mystery if they have to tell him the name of the church every weekend. Just just so he knows. Look, this is all so silly. For what? For a bunch of reasons among them. Remember the Obama Biden administration That was the presidential administration that existed just a couple years ago on Joe Biden was part of it, and they were suing Catholic nuns because they were trying to be because the government trying to force them to pay for abortion inducing drugs and contraception. Member. This so is likewise very devout is a very devout Catholic. He's in charge. He's trying to force Catholics to pay for abortions inside the United States and internationally, along with everybody else in the entire country is very devout. He's very, very Catholic. You see s O to stop asking questions. You know what it is. He's the type of Catholic that the press loves. Right? He's Catholic. A lot of people would say Catholic in name only because because when it comes to pesky parts of the Catholic Church like abortion, look, he's not that Catholic. Then look, look, Hey, seems like he's like a prayerful guy. I mean, he used. I thought it was actually a nice thing when he added the little open position, and he acknowledged the existence of God, and he asked for the nation to pray during the inauguration. I thought that was perfectly acceptable and a really nice thing to do for for any president. But this whole effort to paint him as like as hyper devout and don't ask questions about you know religion with him. It's just It's just so Silly, and it's meant for two purposes. One. I think it's kind of designed to insult conservatives who are typically much more concerned about this factor because they think that you're religious fervor is reflection on your ethical values. And are concerned about that. Also, conservatives by and large, it's not concerned about that. They're also concerned about religious liberty. So they looked to people who believe in religion as the type of people who would guard protect religious liberty. Joe Biden doesn't have much of a track record on that. In fact, he's incurred upon religious liberty frequently when he's had power, and the other side of it is like liberal rich. Elite liberals. Have families and go to church. And they want to be convinced that their faith are sound that there are no holes in it. So when they support Joe Biden, and they say he's very religious and makes them feel good that they turned the other way on issues like abortion. And the media also went crazy when on their way home from Mass. They did with a lot of Catholic families do on their way home from Mass, which is either stopped at the bakery or stop elsewhere. And like a deli or something, so they stopped to get bagels that had been pre ordered in Hunter was apparently at mass with them, and he ran in. You go get bagels. So I call your mother. That's just actually very good. There s o. They stopped into the deli. To get bagels. Stop the whole motorcade. So, Yeah, if they're just like you and me, this is just like the rest of us A 43 and W m A L. Right now,.
"cockney barrett" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Tonight. It's KQED public radio lows to not expected thirties to mid forties. It's all things considered from NPR news. I'm Mary Louise Kelly and I'm Ari Shapiro. When President Joe Biden took the oath of office this morning, he placed his hand on a thick, warn brown leather Bible. It's a family heirloom he's carried throughout his political career. President Biden is Catholic, and he wears his faith more publicly than many presidents. He often quotes the Bible and Catholic thought in speeches as he did today. I promise you this is the Bible says we be may endure for a night. But Joy cometh in the morning. We will get through this together together. Reverend James Martin is a Jesuit priest and editor at large of America magazine, and he joins us to talk more about the president's speech and how faith informs Biden's leadership. Good to have you here. Good to be here. Before we get to the language of the speech. Tell us broadly where you see Biden's Catholic faith manifest over the last 24 hours. Well, hey, started off the day with mass at ST Matthew's conceived cathedral with a friend of his Kevin O'Brien, a Jesuit. He had a Jesuit priest, Leo O'Donovan, do the invocation. He Sprinkled as you said, Catholic references it it really is part of who he is. I don't think you can separate Joe Biden from his Catholic faith, so it's z part of his life. Well in that speech. There wasn't a lot of Scripture quoted. But I do want to ask you about this moment many centuries ago, saying Augusta, a saying in my church wrote that the people was a multitude. Defined by the common objects of their loan, and then he went on to list those common objects that Americans love. Opportunity. Security, liberty, dignity, etcetera. I understand you think that line makes this a very Catholic speech. Explain why? Well, it's not every day that you were here, Santa Guston quoted and Inauguration address. I was with my Jesuit brothers watching it and we all sort of our eyebrows went up. It's it's he could have just talked about. We need to work together. But instead, he brought in ST Augustine. I think the whole speech was pretty Catholic. Though it was. It was around that the notion of the common good, which is part of Catholic social teaching, so I would say explicitly and implicitly. It was a Catholic speech. Explain that idea of the common good and why it is so central to Catholicism. Well, because it's more than just the individual is, um, that we tend to think about in the United States than in terms of blessed, they faire capitalism. It's not just every person for himself or herself. It's working towards something that is common on its mean contributing something to the common good to society, and that sometimes can be seen at odds with sort of rugged individualism. But, you know, I think Biden is a president Biden was rightto raise it especially Today, when we're facing pandemic and all sorts of other problems. President Biden's deep Catholic faith is well known, and it's very different from someone like Justice Amy Cockney Barrett or the Catholic voters who supported President Trump. Can you talk about that? Sure, it's a big church Catholics. The Catholic Church is not a monolith. And so we have Catholics who are Democrats and Republicans who are progressive and traditional who are conservative and liberal and I would say that Amy Cockney Barrett's Catholicism. They're both Catholic, and they're both sincere in their Catholicism's stresses some things and not other things, or and the same with the president Biden so You know the on the fundamentals, they agreed, but it's a different way of being Catholic. I would say, Would you say that one approach is the minority in American Catholicism today? That's a good question. I might say half and half. I think that the shall we say the more traditionalist side has been more active and perhaps more You want to say loud, but maybe a public about their faith, and I think people tend to forget about the progressive side. That I think President Biden probably more fully reflects than justice parents. Let me also ask you about the public response or lack thereof to Biden's Catholic faith. I was not alive to cover the Kennedy presidential campaign, but I understand it was a very big deal when he ran for office and so much less so right now. Yes. And you know President Kennedy? I was. I think I was one year old. When that happened. President Kennedy was forced to go before a group of Protestant pastors and say explicitly, the Vatican will not tell me what to do. Oh, there was this fear that you know, the pope was just going to call him up and tell him what to do. And Catholics since then, have been really acculturated into Into American culture. And so I don't I don't think people there might be some anti Catholicism. But for the most part, people say, Well, these Catholic, he's Christian. And so that's fine with me. There's not as much virulent anti Catholicism that he had to address Finally, How do you think President Biden's faith will inform his leadership over the next four years? Well, certainly his faith and Jesus is going to help him, You know, look at problems with the poor. Hopefully, you know he'll be considering what Pope Francis had said on the environment and on other issues. I think you're also going to see a more Catholic culture. I think you know, references to the saints to the sisters. He knew to going to Mass. You know, President Biden is someone who speaks of personally very frequently, and a big part of his personal life is his faith. And so you don't get ready for it least four years of more Catholic culture. That is Reverend James Martin, editor at large of American magazine and a Jesuit priest. Thank you for speaking with us today. My pleasure. On this inaugural day. We're checking in with some of the people we have heard from over these past four years to find out what they hope for in the next four years. I'm Carla Hilliard. I'm a high school English teacher in Martinsburg, West Virginia. I spoke to NPR a few years ago at the one year anniversary of the West Virginia teacher and service personnel strikes. I hope to get my students back and class can't wait to see them again. I can't wait for my own Children to go back to school and start experiencing all of the things that they're missing right now that we're missing collectively as a community and as a society. I hope that we rediscover ourselves and rediscover our communities. But I'm teaching inaugural poets this week. I love my Angelou's. It's called on the pulse of morning at the very end of it, she says, and I'm paraphrasing. I hope we can look in our country's face and say with hope. Good morning, and I just heard that this morning on a call with my 11th graders, and I thought, man what a wonderful message to look at one another toe look into our communities to look into our country and say with hope..
"cockney barrett" Discussed on KQED Radio
"It's all things considered from NPR news. I'm Mary Louise Kelly and I'm Ari Shapiro. When President Joe Biden took the oath of office this morning, he placed his hand on a thick, warn brown leather Bible. It's a family heirloom he's carried throughout his political career. President Biden is Catholic, and he wears his faith more publicly than many presidents. He often quotes the Bible and Catholic thought in speeches as he did today. And I promise you this, as the Bible says we be may endure for a night. But Joy cometh in the morning. We will get through this together together. Reverend James Martin is a Jesuit priest and editor at large of America magazine. And he joins us to talk more about the president's speech. And how faith informs Biden's leadership. Good to have you here. Good to be here before we get to the language of the speech. Tell us broadly where used to Biden's Catholic faith manifest over the last 24 hours. Well, hey, started off the day with mass at ST Matthew's conceived cathedral with a friend of his Kevin O'Brien, a Jesuit. He had a Jesuit priest, Leo O'Donovan, do the invocation. He Sprinkled as you said, Catholic references it it really is part of who he is. I don't think you can separate Joe Biden from his Catholic faith, So it's Z part of his life. Well, in that speech, there wasn't a lot of Scripture quoted. But I do want to ask you about this moment. Many centuries ago. ST Augusta, A saying in my church wrote that the people was a multitude defined by the common objects of their love. And then he went on to list those common objects that Americans love. Opportunity. Security. Liberty, dignity, etcetera. I understand you think that line makes this a very Catholic speech. Explain why Well, it's not every day that you hear. ST Augustine quoted and Inauguration address I was with my Jesuit brother is watching it and we all sort of our eyebrows went up. It's it's he could have just talked about. We need to work together. But instead, he brought in ST Augustine. I think the whole speech was pretty Catholic. Though it was. It was around that the notion of the common good, which is part of Catholic social teaching, so I would say explicitly and implicitly. It was a Catholic speech. Explain that idea of the common good and why it is so central to Catholicism. Well, because it's more than just the individual is, um, that we tend to think about in the United States than in terms of laissez faire capitalism. It's not just every person for himself or herself. It's working towards something that is common on its means contributing something to the common good to society, and that sometimes can be seen at odds with sort of rugged individualism. But, you know, I think Biden is a president Biden was rightto raise it especially Today, when we're facing pandemic and all sorts of other problems. President Biden's deep Catholic faith is well known, and it's very different from someone like Justice Amy Cockney Barrett or the Catholic voters who supported President Trump. Can you talk about that? Sure, it's a big church Catholics. The Catholic Church is not a monolith. And so we have Catholics who are Democrats and Republicans who are progressive and traditional who are conservative and liberal. And I would say that Amy Cockney Barrett's Catholicism. They're both Catholic, and they're both sincere in their Catholicism's Stresses some things and not other things, or on the same with President Biden. So you know the on the fundamentals, they agreed, but it's a different way of being Catholic. I would say, Would you say that one approach is the minority in American Catholicism today? That's a good question. I might say half and half. I think that the Shall we say the more traditionalist side has been more active and perhaps more. I want to say loud, but maybe a public about their faith..
"cockney barrett" Discussed on WDUN AM550
"I want to know what he threw away. Well, that's a That's an interesting point. And I think I don't I don't know the answer to that. I mean, what I can tell you is there were certain people, namely Mike Deaver and Nancy Reagan, who if they thought he was going Too far to the edge. Ah, they would say, you know, they would say, Pull it back a little. And I think that there were people that he did listen to, um, but I think one of the one of the difficult things that we're dealing with that ideal within false light. Is how an allegation can can get out of control. I mean, I I have the last book I wrote, which was a non fiction story about two spies called Best of enemies. I wrote during the time of the Trump investigation about about Russia and I have been telling people for a long time that I don't believe the I reject the idea. That Trump is being controlled by the Kremlin. Even though I'm not a particular fan of the Santis is, but I think that the story is too good. Just like when Amy Cockney Barrett was facing approval. The idea that she was part of a cult that where sex on demand, and so there is a market for this, and a lot of what I do in the book is exploit the fact If there is a market for a certain narrative, that market will be met, and there are no referees to stop anyone from spreading rumors. Eric doesn't hold. The book is false Slide. It's coming out in February. And as all of Eric's books, they are great reads. Thank you so much for being with us today. Thank Martha. Thank you, and we are about two hours away from the Trump presidency ending Um, how do you feel about that?.
"cockney barrett" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Nominal damages case. I know of in recent times, which is Taylor Swift sexual assault case, you know that one. Vaguely. Taylor Swift did not have the case at the Supreme Court. But a case before the court on campus speech rights reminded Justice Elena Kagan of Swift, successful suit in 2015 against a Denver radio host for sexual harassment, where the pop star asked for only a dollar in damages. And she said, I'm not really interested in your money. I just want a dollar and that dollar is going to represent something both to me and to the world of women who have experienced What I've experienced, Cagan said. Swifts case was similar to the case before the court, where two former students are suing Georgia Gwinnett College for nominal damages for violating their First Amendment rights and Joe's Does Amy Cockney. Barrett seemed to agree. And Justice Kagan's questions suggest said that really what Taylor Swift wanted was, you know, vindication of the moral right. The legal right. That's sexual assault is reprehensible and wrong. My guest is Harold Print, a professor of the Chicago And College of law. How first tell us a little bit about the case. The case is a first amendment challenged by students to their college administrators for limiting the right of free speech. Had to do with someone who's they? Evangelical Christian who wanted to talk about he preaches is faith and the university quenched the speech here for that precipitated a First Amendment challenge. In court and before could be finally resolved. The we classified where students could make speeches and broaden the opportunity for students. So, in essence, handing the plaintiffs of victory, But then the question was, could they continue to get a court resolution that they were right under the Constitution? And would be entitled of these two nominal damages and attorneysfees. And so far the 11th circuit had held that the case was moved because there's no longer a continuing controversy because the university had changed his policy and that the idea of just the period treason. Nominal damages would not be enough to keep the case alive so that refused the address demerits. Does the government or government entities often change policy following lawsuits, the government does not infrequently change its policies. And indeed, a great example of that came up recently when New York City had an active, very tight gun control legislation, which was challenging. They fought it tooth and nail. As it was getting close to the Supreme Court. New York City back down and said, Well, maybe this was too restrictive and therefore essence moved out that controversy, giving plaintiffs all that they wanted and the Supreme Court that case. Refused to entertain the case by saying it was moved because New York changes politician was not likely to go back to the strict gun control policy that has been challenged. So this in some way to their cousin case in the sense that it asked what happens when the government changes in policy not likely to revert to the older policy. Can. A court nonetheless continued to hear the substance of the claim because it's kept alive by this notion off nominal damages, so it's a narrow case focusing on what really is nominal damages. And should the judges have power to consider Mork constitutional claims in particular, if nominal damages are alleged in the case, before we get back to nominal damages, people might ask. Well, why doesn't that case from last term where the justices said it was mood? Why doesn't that control here? It's going to be in the justices mind in that case, nominal damages were not sought. And so there was not an argument that the case was still alive because of nominal damages, as there are in the Georgia case, But certainly with this case is about it's about judicial power. Should judges be able to second guess scrutinize. More governmental bodies, actions, then the otherwise we would be able to. The problem is, it's hard to quantify First Amendment speech. In our occasion, the plaintiff wasn't allowed to speak. How do you put a dollar value on that? Maybe you could say he had to walk 15 minutes to a different form, And that would cost time and time is money. And maybe you should said the cost me $35 and I could otherwise be making In order to go to the other form to give my speech and the courts would entertain that they'd have to. It's a traditional $35 injury, Isn't it? More practical to say we know that the restriction on speech Damaged you. You couldn't speak. It's hard for dollar figure on that. So vindicate your claim by just saying if a nominal damages and that's why this has become really a very intriguing Case because it doesn't fall really on a conservative versus liberal winds. Exactly. It follows with the question of how much power should judges have to superintendent second guess an administration will be the bag administration, the Trump Administration. So I think that's the access under which the decision was reached in the case, And this case has groups that are often on opposite sides of Supreme Court cases. Uniting there were just two amicus briefs in support of the university. How hard is that? It's very unusual, and I think any kind of interest group that challenges governmental action knows that its ability to get cases heard before the court depend upon a vehicle for keeping a case alive and nominal damages is such a vehicle because it recognizes that there are dignitary harms caused by when the government violates your constitutional rights, even if they're not quantifiable. I mean, they were dignitary harms of common law trespass violation. Someone's trademark and private individuals would get some kind of damage is even if you couldn't prove actual damages. Coming up. So how might the justices rule? This is Bloomberg. It's the eye like a bed. That's really firm. I.
"cockney barrett" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"And again. It's not just the abortion pill that is subject to Certain heightened restrictions and and it varies, You know, from drug to drive. A lot of them are perhaps cancer drugs, or maybe people are familiar with Accutane. But there's I believe that this time over 70 different drugs right now that are subject to some sort of Additional restriction like the abortion pill is they don't just do that for no reason, And so for the abortion lobby to essentially try to come in and say that they know better. Then, you know, 20 years worth of scientists talking about this that the FDA is pretty brazen. However, like I said, We also know the abortion lobby is going to be pressuring the Biden administration Tol remove these restrictions anyway. We know they're working with the transition to try to make it happen, And so it's going to be something that All Americans need to be concerned about it is. It is very noteworthy, though, considering this is the first decision this Supreme Court since the UM addition of Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. It's the first decision that is in any way related to the abortion issue and that I think it is encouraging to see that it not only Went on the side of life. But it was a 6 to 3 vote as well. That's I think a tangible, tangible and noteworthy development coming out of the four year Trump administration. We gotta leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us the great stuff. Thank you Have a good day. Melanie, Israel of the Heritage Foundation. It's for 15. W e, mail, traffic.
"cockney barrett" Discussed on WSB-AM
"Has the doctor. You've been very inspiring to the listeners. A lot of love. Yes. Well, come on, Shucks, guys, come on. A V H, You're talking good this morning, my brother. Say what you're saying. Thank you. I was talking about yesterday morning or this morning. He signed by yesterday morning specific. Our somber show the von Hessler doctrine on a very special von Hessler doctrine. All the comedy goes away. And the host. Just speak soberly to you for three hours. I'm sure some people tuned in to win. Okay. Like I need another guy telling me how to think they come on back today, but most people I think, enjoyed it. I thought it was important yesterday to be Sober voice, not hyperbolic. I see here that CNN had his biggest ratings ever on Wednesday. You know, I don't watch television news at all. Yes, I'm Wednesday. Obviously I tuned in just to see what was going on. But you know what? I'm not like yesterday. I wasn't in the mood for more. I already knew what he didn't do it. This is what TV news does. Well, let's have a bunch of people pontificate for hours upon stuff. Oh, yeah, I'm a person. I have a brain. I saw What happened. I digested it. I don't need no, it's when these 24 hour news network, just the stories get the legs. And you know, I guarantee you that most of the days Hey, look, it was we all understand? You know, we need another pundit to come in and tell us why it was wrong. We understand why it was wrong. Most reasonable, sane people in this country got it within the first minute and a half. I have to think that with that speech last night and listening to Kelly Leffler, after a while, just about everybody finally got just how horrific that was. But the worst thing in the world is that CNN got their best ratings on Wednesday because you tune in next Wednesday, and they'll still be pundit panels talking about this, then it'll be the whole stuff. But look, I believe the president deserves impeachment. Don't get me wrong, but there's 12 days left. These things are processes. The 25th amendment has a whole process to it. The president has the right to respond. This is all just political rhetoric. What you gonna do you for impeachment? You have to first draw up the articles. You have to debate that. You have to argue that you gotta aren't you gotta vote on it. Then if that gets voted up, then they gotta send it over to the Senate. You got to figure out who's gonna be the prosecutor who's gonna be the fender. Then there has to be a trial. There's 12 days. Like what do you do? Impeach him 24 hours before his his term, and I've just seems kind of silly. They should do. I've heard about similarities between like how they ran through Amy Cockney Barrett and I guess they could do that process and I'm not. I don't know how they could. I don't think that was less than 12 days. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't like 12 days. I think Pelosi. This is, you know it's politics, and that's just the way that it is. But now it's at the point of people trying to fund raise and get more stuff. So people want to hear Pelosi say that she's going to impeach the president. But I mean the process takes too long. You know, I will repeat myself. I believe he does. I mean, if there were three months left in this presidency, there's no doubt in my mind that after what happened on Wednesday, he would be impeached. There would be enough Republican votes in the Senate. To remove him from office. No doubt about it, But I guess I have to back up here, I suppose. For Pelosi, there's enough time for them to impeach because impeachment The president is already been impeached once impeachment is what the House does, but there's no time for a trial. There's no time for removal. So even if they do it, it's just like a harsher form of censure. Right, So you know it's but at this point, it's just political rhetoric, you know? Remember this politicians Are vultures, and so they're going to come over and pick over the carcass. The last thing in the world they're going to do is try to do things that hell and bring people back together. There's hell. There's elections to be one. There's money to be raised. And this applies to both sides is just that Trump and the Trumpers Decided to give one late Christmas gift to the left to the Democrat Party, and so they want to take advantage of this is Greg ready to go or she's not ready to go. He's not ready to go while I'll be I'll be darned. We have another open mic. Yes, again. The love continues. Eric. Hey, guys, this is Tracy from Acworth. I just.
"cockney barrett" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Every American and we made religious freedom of priority in the foreign policy goals off our administration on the world stage. Now, you all may remember the last administration was different. Last administration trampled on the religious liberty of Americans on a regular basis. It's true, they compromised the conscience rights of doctors and nurses and religious charities. The last administration even hauled a group of Catholic nuns into federal court to force him to compromise their faith. To live under the federal mandates of Obamacare. Incredible. In fact, we saw that religious intolerance in high relief. Just a few short years ago when Amy Cockney Barrett went before the Judiciary Committee for her first nomination to the federal courts, Do you remember the leading Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Actually said that she was concerned about how sincere Amy Cockney barrettes, Christian faith Woz, she said, and I quote the dogma lives loudly within you and Hollywood liberals have been attacking Amy Cockney barrel for her faith and her values ever since. Well, I got a message for the Democrats in Washington and their friends in Hollywood. Dogma lives loudly in May..
"cockney barrett" Discussed on WGN Radio
"We're running down the top legal news stories for 2020. And we have on the Hochberg phone line. Larry, Alan and Dane Placko. I want to finish up with the police misconduct brutality. George Floyd issue. I want to ask player yelling, You have covered many Legal stories over the course of time that you were at Fox. You were in the courtroom for a lot of these. What didn't just name some of the cases that you cover during your tenure, and I want to ask you the question of King George Floyd's, uh, keep the accused in the George George Floyd case, the dark shoving and the three other officers can they get Ah fair trial in the Minneapolis court. Well rattle off a couple names. I covered the O. J. Simpson trial all the way through up through Jason Van Dyke last year or two a couple years ago, covered all the great Lord judges at the Dirksen Building. George Ryan and radical Goya. Vich. And Walker. Former governors going at the Dirksen building going to prison for the murder of Jennifer Hudson's relatives. Lots of cases s your specific question. Based on what I've seen and especially going to the Jason Van Dyke crowd because that's the closest that laquan McDonald case, I think to the Uh, case in Minneapolis. I think a fair trial is possible. The judge at 26 in California Go on. Judge Gone, ran a very tight ship. And there was a lot of questioning ahead of time as to the jurors, and just what they knew about the case, whether they could be fair, and, uh, a lot of these cases they don't go to trial for two or three years until after the incident. They're not at the top people's conversations and the jurors come into them with an open mind, so I think a fair trial is possible. And dangerous, too. Quick answer to this. You're on the streets. You're doing the reporting. Do you see long term? Don't you know bad cop bad please public relationships. I I sealed myself, But you're on the street more than I am and you see that tension and do you feel like it's going to get better at any point? You absolutely see the attention. You say we'll go to cover a shooting and we'll see people in the neighborhood angry at the way the police are handling the crime season. On. We'll see police officers getting angry with members of the public or potential witnesses that are coming forward. There is definitely and I'm not breaking any news here. There's a severe lack of trust between the community and the police department in Chicago, and that really is issue number one and resolving all of this. And I look forward to true. Please report performs because we've had a lot of noise over the years about these kinds of issues. And you would think with all of these protests and all of the attention that the issue has gotten that now we're going to do something about and I certainly hope that we will because for all the good police officers out there, and many of them listen to the show, and many of them are friends of mine. Um, it's hard to do your job when you have this kind of attention. Let's go to the third national topic that I chose. And it was. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is death and Amy Cockney barrettes confirmation and, um, I just picked this story because it's going to have long lasting effects on the way the court is making decisions, and we're going to have something interesting decisions coming down in the next 30 years. Let's start with you, Larry and looking at it. From the retired standpoint, how important was RBG to the women's movement? She seemed like she had some popular popularity outside of the area of little jurists. People dressing up in Halloween costumes. Yeah, whole generation of people who saw her working out And just fell in love with their lifestyle habits or quotations. She influenced, uh young girls to be to get into the practice of law. She influenced a lot of men who practice law and follow their Hearts and dreams to Ah, fight for justice in the courts. I think she was tremendously influential and she will be definitely missed. And I think the way that the Supreme the the Senate. And I think the way that the next that air replacement was selected was improper. And let in. And we we all saw the politics again. That was politics where America Garland was not confirmed. But during the Obama administration, and, uh and yet, Amy, come Cockney Barrett was pushed through and in no, you know, in a very quick period of time. Um And do you think, um And and and Dane? You know, you're you're not, you know, have a crystal ball. But are we going to see in court packing issues? Are we going to see the issue of term limits for U S Supreme Court? Justices bantered about in Congress. No, it's interesting is is, uh, you know, President elect Biden's been asked a number of times, especially during debates about that is you when it was when it was white hot and he never kept his hand, did he? You know, we say that you know it's something we'll look at it. Something will stay, but he never. He never said it was something that he was behind or something he didn't want to do. So, um, I mean, he's gonna have a lot on his plate right off the bat, but I would imagine. Yeah, Z if I had to guess, And it's only a guess. I don't see Biden traditionalists as he seems to be. Looking to pack the court. But there may be some other remedies for. Apparently, issues popped up. Go ahead. And I know you're right, asking us for our predictions for the upcoming year two and right and on that point The one thing that Biden might be able to do is appoint a Supreme Court Justice Stephen Bryer Justice Bryer is 82 years old. He has already said in recent interviews that he will Retire rather than die on the bench on..
"cockney barrett" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM
"Issue before you can. I have done that in my time on the seventh circuit, But Barrett stood her ground Barrett leveled with the senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I just can't just wake up one day and say I have an agenda. I like guns. I hate guns. I like abortion. I hate abortion and walk in like a royal queen and imposed their will on the world, she said. They have to wait for cases and controversies, which they interpret. Barrett was also grilled on Obama care, since the high court is deciding a case on it soon and would not Commit to recusing herself from hearing the case of confirmed when asked by Senate Democrats, But eventually the questioning was over. The moment came, it was time to vote the ayes or 52. The nays or 48. The vote Kelly, mostly along party lines to confirm bear it to the Supreme Court. Your senators Mike Brown and Todd Young, both voting to confirm Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the only Republican to join every Democrat in voting. No. Barrett was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas soon after the votes that privileged to be asked to serve my country in this office, she's an alumna of Notre Dame, Notre Dame president Father John Jenkins, calling her confirmation a momentous achievement. Barrett joins Chief Justice John Roberts says. One of two Hoosiers to currently sit on the high court from RBG Toe. A CB for hindsight, 2020. I'm Donny Burgess and curtains. Shyla. Maybe you can talk about this for a minute, one of the consequences. Of father John Jenkins going to that big to do at the White House where President Trump introduced Amy Cockney Barrett as the nominee? Well, yeah, if you remember he went to the to the To the Rose Garden, and he was not wearing a mask. Where's along with many other people there, And, of course, that had some pretty far fetching ramifications for the students back at Notre Dame. We were basically on him on his case about not wearing a mask, and he ended up getting coronavirus. Yep, I want to talk to another consequence of this lot of people were saying Amy Cockney Barrett should recuse herself when it comes time for election challenges. And as the election challenges have come to the Supreme Court, if you will notice, there has been no dissent as far as the Supreme Court throwing those election challenges out. So it looks like a least according to Ah, to this particular subject matter, Amy Cockney. Barrett has proven herself a person of her word. As far as You know not to. Not being partial to the president who nominated her for the position. I'm personally just very interested to see how Amy Kuney Barrett's positioning on the Supreme Court affect issues that are pertinent to both sides of the political spectrum, because, as you said, it appears that she has remained true to her word. But I remember speaking to Dr Laura Wilson you nd on. She said that her placement would more than likely result in a clash of ideologies. Regardless s O. I'm just very intrigued to see where that goes from here coming up, But my luck Yes, Indiana's fortune..
"cockney barrett" Discussed on 710 WOR
"Stood stood for all of us have millions of people who looked up to her justice. Ginsburg wrote landmark opinions that advanced gender equality and writes for disabled Americans and immigrants. Days before her death, she dictated the statement to her granddaughter, saying her most fervent wish was to not be replaced before a new president was installed. President Trump did not grant that wish. I have a constitutional obligation to put in nine judges. So justices he nominated Amy Cockney Barrett, a Notre Dame academic and a judge on the seventh U. S Circuit Court of Appeals, one of our nation's most brilliant and gifted legal minds. Democrats balked at the time they are ramming through for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. President Trump's nominee. In a rush and partisan process in the midst of an ongoing presidential election. This process is undemocratic. Republican colleagues are rushing to confirm Judge Barrett in a hypocritical in legitimate process. Republican shredded past pronouncements and the Senate voted 52 to 48 in favor of confirming Judge Barrett as an associate justice to the Supreme Court when there's a nominee of the party That is in the same in the same party as the Senate then. Typically, they do confirm what this administration and this Republican Senate has done. His exercise. Power that was given to us by the American people. Precedent is clear for.
Wisconsin high court won't let Trump campaign bypass lower court
"Court has thrown out a lower court decision that upheld California's limits on the number of people who can attend religious services during the pandemic. NPR's Nina Totenberg reports, the high court has instructed the lower court to reexamine these limits. In previous cases from California. The court had upheld the state's rules. But that changed with the arrival of new Justice Amy Cockney Barrett, who tipped the court majority in the other direction. So now, the justices have told the lower courts to reexamine the rules limiting the number of congregants that indoor services in California religious groups complained that they're the victims of discrimination because the limits on the number of people permitted at worship services are more severe than they are for grocery stores and warehouses. The state counters that there's a far greater danger of covert spread at places where people sing, chant and gather for longer periods of time. Nina
Trump campaign loses appeal in Pennsylvania
"Appeals court on Friday denied the Trump campaign's effort to revive the federal lawsuit challenging the election results in Pennsylvania ruling the claims have no merit. The judges also rejecting the president's motion to one do Pennsylvania's certification of oats. The state on Tuesday certified its general election results in Pennsylvania, formally awarding President elect Joe Biden 20 electoral votes. There are those now who think that this rejection, But the federal appeals court will help the Trump campaign effort to get a case before the U. S. Supreme Court for it to decide the Supreme Court the night before Thanksgiving handed down a favorable ruling for many of the supporters of the president when they said the governor of New York's covert restrictions on some Catholic churches and synagogues Should be tossed out. So what does it mean for the future of the fight by the President's campaign, Mark Larsen from AM 7 60 talked to CBS News correspondent in Washington. Major Garrett about these cases, the third circuit in the most recent decision that came down today out of Pennsylvania case set. You need facts and law to be in dispute and we have neither. There's no evidence. There are no facts there. No presentations. There are just accusations and happily because court should not jump in when there are no facts and no relevant allegations and no dispute. About the underlying walk, no courts to jump in and do that They're not and they're not going to and nothing is going to get the Supreme Court that's reversible. And everyone says Oh, my gosh. Supreme Court said that Religious organizations are protected from certain covert restrictions. Of course they are in the First Amendment. There's a higher standard that's been part of U S law. The very beginning it's in the bill of rights. It's the First Amendment. Yes, there has to be a higher standard and a higher standard has been in law for a long time. It's not a departure. It's a verification, so they're separate things. Oh my gosh. The Supreme Court protected religious organizations and how they observed from covert restrictions. Yes, yes, There's a higher standard, right. Let's talk about that for a second. That was a big deal. Amy Cockney Barrett's first big swing vote opportunity there, and this puts limits on New York on Cuomo. When it came to, he was imposing attendance limits, like kind of like we have here in many cases with his own version of the color codes. 10 people in red Zones 25. People in orange zones seem to be disproportionately getting to the Catholics and the Orthodox Jewish congregations and so forth. So so this is a is a big deal. That sort of happened just over the holiday here in the court. Said. What the court has always said, which is Because it's in the First Amendment because it's in the bill of rights because it's in the Constitution. There's a higher standard that must be met. If you're going to restrict this activity. You better have a compelling state reason to do that. Mm. And if people have the volition to decide which they do, And you have to let them operate within the freedoms outlined in the Constitution that to meet is that doesn't strike me is radical and it doesn't strike me as something is his dangerous now did the chief justice when it was an eight member Supreme Court before him. He called me Barrett was nominated confirmed. Keep it for four. Yes, he did. So the chief justice comes down differently. But this didn't seem to me to be a radical departure that would should make us all breathless are nervous about what the court's going to do. And for the same reason, if any of these cases which I don't ever imagine they will get Supreme Court get there. The Supreme Court's not going to say you know what What doesn't matter, and we're going to keep President Trump in office, and it's not going to do that's not gonna happen. There's nothing that is meticulously legitimate about the assertions made so far and they've had plenty of time to find something and they found nothing. And that's the way it is. Major
Trump Celebrates SCOTUS Decision on COVID Restrictions
"CBS News correspondent Natalie Brand is that the White House Where the president is Also celebrating a Supreme Court ruling President Trump sent a happy Thanksgiving tweet Thursday morning Retweeting News of the Supreme Court's decision issued late Wednesday, blocking covert restrictions on houses of worship in New York in a 5 to 4 ruling with President Trump's latest appointee, Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. Now on the bench, the high court ruled in favor of religious groups, saying the state's coronavirus restrictions effectively barring many from attending religious services. Strike at the very heart of the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, issuing a statement applauding the court's decision, saying that they are gratified and appreciate the court's recognition of a clear First Amendment violation in urgent need for relief in that case.
Supreme Court Rules New York Cannot Limit Attendance At Houses Of Worship Due To COVID-19
"The Supreme Court ruled late last night's to block New York from enforcing attendance limits on houses of worship. President Trump's new Appointee, Justice Amy Cockney, Barrett, was in the majority on the decision. It's a shift from two previous cases in Nevada and California this year, when Barrett's predecessor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was on the court. That's news nations. Geez Aggie reporting. The court's action won't have any immediate impact since the two groups that sued as a result of the restrictions. The Roman Catholic Church, an Orthodox Jewish synagogues are no longer subject to them. The group had challenged the attendants, limits and areas designated red and orange zones, but they're now in the less restrictive yellow zones.
Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on New York houses of worship
"Of New York state's strict attendants limits on religious gatherings. The rules were designed to help slow the spread of the Corona virus. It's 5 to 4 decision highlights tensions that have grown during the pandemic between secular leaders and some religious groups that also opens a window on the new makeup of this court. Now that Amy Cockney Barrett is on the bench. NPR's Brian Mann is in Westport in upstate New York and has been following developments have Ryan Hey, happy Thanksgiving, Ari. Same to you. New York has seen tens of thousands of covert 19 deaths. So what immediate impact is this ruling going to have on the state's attempt to fight the pandemic? State officials say there's no immediate impact. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish groups brought this legal challenge and state officials have already rolled back the so called red and orange zones that covered their churches and synagogues. So the rule limiting attendance to his fewest 10 people, even in big religious spaces. It wasn't actually being enforced. But the ruling could limit new restrictions here in the future at the number of cases really surges again in New York, and this also sends a message. You know two other governors around the country how the Supreme Court will look it at any of their restrictions. What's the reaction been today from the religious groups that brought this case? Yeah, they've declared victory. They say this is an important win for religious freedom. They point out that New York was still allowing so called essential businesses to operate in Corona virus hot spots without the same level of restriction. And this win for religious leaders is reversal from the Supreme Court's posture just last summer that gave governors ah lot more leeway fighting this pandemic. I spoke about this with Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia, he's legal expert on religious liberty. Governor's orders in New York, where some of the mystery Cockney and in the country the first case where Amy Cody Barrett really makes a difference is compared to respect her Ginsberg and it slipped the result and they're not going to be different from the governor's anymore. They're really going toe examine closely for signs of discrimination. And Laycock points out, Ari that governors can still restrict religious gatherings. They just can't restrict them in ways that are different from rules for businesses or government buildings. And now New York governor Andrew Cuomo was named personally in the lawsuit. How did he respond to the ruling? He described this as a political statement being made by this more conservative bloc that now defines this court. But in his daily coronavirus briefing today, Cuomo did also acknowledge the complicated tension here. Look, I'm a former altar boy Catholic Catholic grammar school Catholic high school Jesuit, said college, so I fully respect religion. And if there's a time in life when we need it at the time is now. But we want to make sure we keep people safe at the same time, and and that's the balance we're trying to hit, especially through this holiday season. And I should add, are that this isn't really new. Here. We've seen deadly Corona virus outbreaks in New York around religious communities following ceremonies, funerals and weddings, for example, right from the start of this pandemic, and religious leaders have clashed repeatedly with caramel, also with New York City's mayor. Over how far elected officials can or should go to limit new infections. Now, you mentioned that this reflects the new makeup of the Supreme Court, and there was some tense language in the opinions tell us about what the justices said. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence of green with this decision that was pretty biting. He wrote that, according to Governor Cuomo, and I'm reading here, quote it may be unsafe to go to church. But it's always fine to pick up another bottle of wine shop for a new bike or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. That's Reference thereto acupuncture clinics that remain open in New York. Meanwhile, in her dissent, Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that in the past, the Supreme Court has given public officials broad leeway in cases involving religion where public safety is a concern, she pointed The fact that the Supreme Court upheld President Trump's ban on immigration from certain Muslim countries. So justice Sotomayor suggesting that this ruling reflects a double standard. NPR's Brian Man, Thanks a lot. Thank you worry. It's a tough call to make telling your family you won't be
High court blocks New York virus limits on houses of worship
"New York Governor Andrew Cuomo four seasons little practical effect from a Supreme Court ruling that bars the state from enforcing certain attendance limits. And houses of worship in pandemic hot zones, he says. The 5 to 4 ruling with new Justice Amy Cockney Barrett in the majority is more about demonstrating the high court has changed its stripes.
Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on some New York houses of worship
"The Supreme Court is temporarily barred New York from enforcing certain attendance limits that houses of worship in areas designated as hard hit by the coronavirus. Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish synagogues sued to get around those restrictions. The Supreme Court justices split 5 to 4 with new Justice Amy Cockney Barrett in the majority. The court's three liberal justices and chief Justice John Roberts dissented in that
Feinstein will not seek Senate Judiciary Committee leadership
"Senate committee is losing its chair. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, announced Monday that she's stepping down as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee after groups on the left criticized her handing of Amy Cockney Barrett Supreme Court confirmation hearing. Feinstein came under scathing criticism after she hugged Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham at the end of Barrett's confirmation hearing and praise his handling of it. She sparked outrage on the left after she thank grand For quote. One of the best sets of hearings I've ever participated in and praise or GOP colleagues were fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth Bernie Bennett in Washington, Joe
Feinstein will not seek Senate Judiciary Committee leadership
"Will not be looking to keep her spot is ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee when the next Congress convenes. California senior senator is served in the position since 2017 but had been the target of fire from within her own Democratic Party. After the rushed confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. There's no official word on who might replace her. President
Durbin seeks to become top-ranking Democrat on Judiciary panel
"Feinstein, the Democrat from California, was stepping down. As the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. She was criticized after praising Lindsey Graham's handling of the most recent Supreme Court nomination hearings for Amy Cockney Barrett, and now we're getting word that Senator Durbin, who was ranking third on the committee, says he will seek the ranking position there. He would be ranking behind right now. Feinstein and Patrick Leahy. They both have chaired the committee in the past, so On DIT. Both are quite a bit older than Dick Durbin, Durbin saying Now that he will seek the ranking committee status for the judiciary. Of course,
The Affordable Care Act Faces Yet Another Supreme Court Test
"Washington that the U. S. Supreme Court Tuesday the Trump Administration and the state of Texas will lead arguments that Obama care should be struck down in its entirety. NPR's Nina Totenberg reports. It'll be the third attempt to invalidate the law since it was enacted a decade ago. Faced with earlier challenges to the law of the high Court upheld it. Buy votes of 5 to 4 and 6 to 3. But many of the lawyers who originally challenged the law in 2012 now say that the legal landscape has changed so much since then, that they think this challenge is a stretch. And many of the groups including major business groups that supported the original challenge are missing from the challenge. Now that said the court is far more conservative today than it was when previous challenges were brought. Among the three trump appointees. Now on the court is New Justice Amy Cockney Barrett, who's been highly critical of the court's previous decisions upholding
Collins Wins in Maine, Denying Democrats a Crucial Senate Pickup
"Watched Senate race only sobriety Fox News Republican Susan Collins of Maine claiming victory moments ago as her Democratic challenger Sara Gideon concedes and the Fox News decision Desk, just officially calling that Senate race for Collins. Noting that it significantly improves Republican chances of keeping control of the Senate that race not as close In the end of some expected Collins ahead by more than eight points. I am the first person Since main directly elected it's senators TTO win of fifth term She has been known for opposing President Trump at times. But standing alongside Republicans were some crucial votes, including the confirmation of Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh. She opposed last month's vote on Justice Amy Cockney Barrett. Though coming so close to the election, President Trump is
Potential legal challenges over late-arriving mail ballots
"With so many Americans voting by mail this year. There are concerns that ballots may not arrive on time when you have some states that don't require a postage mark on there, so we don't know when they were filled out. They don't require signature verification, and some states say they'll be counting nine or 10 days after the election, I think is the most industrialized country in the world. We can do better than that. Corey Lewandowski, a senior advisor with the Trump campaign on Fox News Sunday. As legal challenges abound, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on ballot disputes in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. At issue a three day extension for mail in ballots in Pennsylvania, something Republicans oppose Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a statement. There's simply not enough time to issue a pre election decision. In North Carolina Republicans have been fighting a nine day extension for mail in ballots. In that case, the Supreme Court allowed a lower court ruling permitting the extension to stand. The newest justice Amy Cockney. Barrett, did not participate in the cases, citing a lack of time to review
Supreme Court rules on North Carolina and Pennsylvania mail-in ballots
"Court says elections officials in North Carolina may count absentee ballots. Up to nine days after Election Day. Rusty Jacobs with North Carolina public radio, says state Republicans had sought to block the extension. North Carolina law already allowed for counting absentee ballots postmarked by but received up to three days after Election Day extension was part of of a a legal legal settlement settlement in in state state court court between between the the Democratic Democratic majority majority North North Carolina Carolina Board Board of of Elections Elections and and advocacy advocacy groups groups that that suit suit to to his his absentee absentee ballot ballot rules rules made made the the Corona Corona virus virus pandemic, pandemic, slow Postal service and a surgeon mail in votes Rusty Jacob's reporting. Separately, the US Supreme Court also rejected a second attempt of block Pennsylvania's extended Ballad Deadline. Newly sworn in Justice Amy Cockney Barrett did not take part in either decision.
Supreme Court upholds mail-in ballot extension in Pennsylvania and North Carolina
"Court is allowing extended deadlines for receiving mail in ballots in next Tuesday's election in Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The ruling is seen as a blow to the Trump campaign. New Justice Amy Cockney Barrett did not participate in yesterday's decision. The action by the justices means a ruling by Pennsylvania's top court allowing mail in ballots. That air postmarked by election Day and received up to three days later can be counted. A similar ruling was made for North Carolina.