11 Burst results for "Edith Jones"
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"edith jones" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"I know the chief justice, I know a couple of the justices. Do you think they will take this case revive the guarantee clause and resurrect the non delegation doctrine, which is dead right now? Yeah, I think they will. And I think or I think there's a good chance they will. If you read the recent Supreme Court opinion on public union power, they are clearly offended by what the effects have been on democracy. Remember, democracy is nothing but a process of accountability. So, you know, people voters elect somebody, if they do a lousy job, they elect someone else. If there's no accountability down the line, then democracy is just theater. I agree with you. And I love teaching Janice. I taught Janice last week. And I said, this came close to being a success and then Scalia died and we had to do it all over again. And we finally won. But there was a plaintiff who had standing in the case was ripe, it hadn't been mooted, and they won. And I had Paul Clement on a couple of weeks ago. The former solicitor general trying to get the court to take a case that will put front and center the Chevron doctrine, which is another step. But it's just we're not doing it fast enough, fellow power. It's killing the country. You know, well, I agree, but you know what's astonishing to me because I just started looking into this a couple of years ago, is that everybody knows that the public unions are terrible problem for government. I mean, just not to put too fine a point on it. For regular public services like transit systems or fixing potholes or trash collection, studies suggest that the rigid work rules are mean that it costs taxpayers two to three times as much. As it would cost in the private sector. So think of those dollars. I mean, overall in the United States, we spend over $2 trillion a year in public employee compensation. $2 trillion. So we're talking about ten, 12, 15% of total GDP. And these people are not manageable. So even if you're a diehard liberal, how can you tolerate that amount of waste of resources that could be spent for name it? Any cause, including with this or anything else. Philip Howard, the book not accountable. I hope it is read by the justices. A few of them listen to the show every morning. I hope they get non accountable and give it to their clerks and say to him, can we get here? But first you need someone with standing to bring the challenge. And this is legal, this is high law. Who has standing to bring a constitutional challenge that's not a taxpayer? So we're working right now on several lawsuits, including with a public interest law firm in Chicago. And depends on what the claim is, but in general, the most obvious standing is by an elected executive or an elected board. So it could be a mere governor of school board, whatever. And the case is quite simple, which is it's our constitutional responsibility to run the school system, or run this town, and I can't do it because of these collective bargaining agreements. And therefore, they should be invalid very simple. You did not put that in not accountable. Because I read every page of this in two days saying, I got to talk to this guy, but I'm looking, I'm thinking like a con law professor standing standing standing. You just gave me articulated defensive standing. Who will bring the lawsuit, which public interest firm is doing is common good got lawyers? Well, coming, it does have lawyers, but we're working with, so we're already starting to work with the liberty justice center in Chicago, which brought the Janet prosecuted the Janis case. We're talking with two other public interest law firms about doing lawsuits in New York and in Connecticut. And we're working on California. And you need one in Texas. So we can get the circuits to split. I'm really into it. You know, speaking of Texas, there was a 5th circuit concurring opinion in the in bank decision a couple of weeks ago, quoting at length from not accountable. Oh, really? Just out. Was Edith Jones the author? It was Ho and Jones. You know, you couldn't ask for a better panel. Did they use the Republican form of government? That's the guarantee clause for the benefit of the Steelers fans. Did that surface? I don't think they were quoting that part of it, but they were quoting the book and for as relevant to that case, which was not the guarantee clause. But, you know, there are steps forward as I discussed in the book for applying the guarantee clause for this never actually been applied by the court.
SGGQA Podcast – SomeGadgetGuy
"edith jones" Discussed on SGGQA Podcast – SomeGadgetGuy
"The 5th circuit reinstates Texas law that was previously found to violate the First Amendment. In a tweet, Paxton called the ruling a big win against big tech, adding, I look forward to continuing to defend the constitutionality of HB 20. The state law says that a social media platform may not sensory user based on the user's viewpoint and define sensor as block van remove de platform demonetized, de boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to or otherwise discriminate against. The Texas attorney general or users can sue social media platforms that violate this ban and win injunctive relief and reimbursement of court costs. In addendum, this Texas law also prohibits social media platforms from leaving the state of Texas. So this is the worst authoritarian near corporate fascist shot against free speech that we've seen in modern history. If you claim to be a free speech, absolutist, you're lying to yourself if you support this type of initiative. No one is claiming that the current communications decency act is perfect, it obviously needs some refinement how companies can kind of hide behind the CDA, especially what is it section section two 30, I've already spaced on what the sort of big contentious anyway. I've explained this before, and I feel like I need to keep reiterating freedom of speech also means freedom from government compelled speech. I know a lot of people like to make the argument that Twitter has become a public platform. Twitter is high visibility, but it's still a private company. Facebook is still a private company. So the state of Texas is trying to say our government can force speech onto these platforms. We are compelling them. We are forcing them to publish speech on private infrastructure that they disagree with. It has become a cornerstone of free speech law that the government can not force you to speak if you don't want to speak. The government, again, you're not going to get thrown in jail for speaking your mind. That's the First Amendment. That is a public protection. You have to face the consequences of your free speech, but you will not be thrown into jail just for sort of saying what's on your mind. The flip side of that is the government can not force you to say something you disagree with. That is a part through legal precedent that is a part of our free speech protections. So this thread here is, I'm sorry, this thread. This law here is one of the most anti business and anti consumer anti free speech pieces of legislation I've ever seen in my entire life. First of all, you can't be pro business and then say, we're not going to allow you to stop doing business with us. You have to do business with us or face legal penalties and we'll sue you and will initiate lawsuits. That can't happen. The constitutionality of that is already supremely suspect. But the other reason why I wanted to bring this up. Last week we talked about how ISPs had finally given up trying to fight net neutrality in the state of California. And we're still in gridlock. We're still in a deadlock at the FCC, where we're long overdue, trying to start the process of establishing a federal standard for net neutrality and title two regulation over the Internet. These articles, I feel are missing one critical small piece of this conversation. So I'm not picking on John brodkin here, excuse me. The judges struggle with basic tech concepts. Oral arguments were held on Monday this week and the judges seemed to struggle with basic tech concepts. Judges were skeptical of arguments made by tech industry group's net choice and the computer and communications and industry association, which sued Texas to block the law. One judge suggested that Twitter isn't even a website and another wondered if phone companies have a First Amendment right to kick people off their services. Judge Edith Jones, or I'm trying to find the quote. Your clients are Internet providers. They are not websites. So I need that I need that to ring just a little bit. One of the judges has called these individual Internet social media companies Internet providers. Okay. So in this right here, and especially in this chat, that sounds like a complete disassociation of how modern technology works, right? We all understand the relationship between an individual, a company that gets them Internet access, and then services that live on the Internet. One of the critical things that I think these articles have missed is currently. Our Internet is regulated as an information service. I think it's very telling that they're bringing up telephones. Because telephone infrastructure is regulated as a telecommunication service. Remember, all the doom and gloom, the ajit pai years of the FCC, nothing's going to change when we remove net neutrality. But the major push of the open Internet order. Was to regulate the Internet as a telecommunication service. Was to regulate as if it were a utility. Which it is. Your telephone service, your television service, that's regulated as telecommunication. The Internet is an information service. Telecommunication service, again, I'm being very.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"edith jones" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"To Neville Chamberlain. Well, you know what bob gay said about Joe Biden and foreign policy that he'd been wrong on every on every major occasion. So I think this is the Joe Biden that I knew in the Senate, good guy, but increasingly wrong are almost always wrong. These kinds of issues. And surrounded by weak need people. Even if Ben Rhodes was on the outside cheering on attacks on the Koch brothers as oligarchs, it's just astonishing. We know I want to turn to judge Brown Jackson. I think she's going to be confirmed rather easily. I put the over under at 65. I think she's qualified, but the questions matter. Will someone ask her about article two section two, which is the treaty power? That is vested in your body leader McConnell, not in the State Department. They can not continue to do JCPOA's and pretend like they can't go to the Senate with it. That legitimate question for a nominee to answer. Well, I don't think this is a good question she would not answer it. She would claim that that's an issue that might come before her. And so I think she will not answer it. I'll tell you, I ask her something I thought she could and should have answered. I said, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and justice Breyer have been quite open and express themselves on the issue of court packing. And term limits for Supreme Court Justices, which is clearly unconstitutional. This is about the institution of the Supreme Court. Why don't you tell us how you feel about that? She wouldn't even answer that. So I think all these nominees, whether they're from a Republican president, or democratic president of justice, Ginsburg's confirmation have basically refused to answer any question. And I don't think you'll address the treaty power either you. All right, now there is one thing I think she can address. I don't know if you talked to her about it. When your colleague Chuck Schumer held a press conference in front of the Supreme Court and threatened the court, and the United States Senate said a brief and threatening the court, that is a court matter about which the court, it's not going to come before the court because it's a letter, which he talked about the appropriateness of threatening the Supreme Court by the Senate. Well, my guess is that our junior committee members will ask you about all these things, but you won't respond. Look, the liberal groups are so excited. About her nomination are the very ones that have been calling for packing the court or term limits on the court. So in a sense, that's her base. So that's the double reason why she won't answer questions about the tax on the court, which I think would be appropriate for her to comment on. I do too. I hope it's repeatedly brought up. Leader McConnell, I have in my hands one damn thing after another, the memoirs of attorney general William Barr, I'm a big bar fan, and I'm up to the part where they are nominating David souter. And, you know, that is probably the biggest mistake in judicial politics for the last 50 years because it was Edith Jones or David Sutter Kent star was in third place. And George H. W. Bush, a great American, was afraid of a confirmation battle. Why is it that Republicans are afraid of them and Democrats aren't that they nominate reliable hardcore liberal judges like judge Brown Jackson and no one doubts she's going to rule with the left and we get all jumpy, we being Republicans about nominating good solid conservative originalists. Yes, I think it's pretty safe to say no democratic president had an unpleasant surprise by any of their super important nominees. And we've had that on a number of occasions. I don't think we made it a safer in the Trump administration. I think confirming judges of the simple majority help get the right kind of judges on the bench and but yeah, if you look back, Nixon pointed blackman Bush 41 suitor, they may have been saying. And bill Barr points this out that dick thornburg and boyden gray recommended David souter. He and Mike Ludwig and vice president Quayle and others supported Edith Jones. What would be the difference in the United States of Edith Jones had not been the nominee leader? I know I'm a difference. Jones is still one of the first circuit doing her thing. Yes, she is. You know, others that were considered at the time large silver runs great these circuit court judge would have also been all star..
TIME's Top Stories
"edith jones" Discussed on TIME's Top Stories
"Brought to you by Shopify, start selling today. 5 Edith Wharton books to read after watching the Gilded Age. By Katie Lang. Fabulous displays of wealth, high society scandals and power struggles at all levels fuel the opulence drama of HBO's the Gilded Age, which premiered on Monday. The show which comes by way of Julian fellows, the creator behind the 2001 film gosford park, and the critically acclaimed historical series Downton Abbey is a lavish period drama set in the 1880s, an era of rapid growth and change known as the Gilded Age. The series centers on the introduction of a group of newcomers to New York City's rigid high society, ranging from wide eyed country ingenue, Marion Brooke, played by Louisa Jacobson, who moves in with her aunts, Christine baranski and Cynthia Nixon, who belong to one of New York's oldest and most wealthy families to the nouveau riche Russell family headed up by George, a ruthless railroad tycoon patriarch played by Morgan Specter, and has even more ambitious wife Bertha, played by Kerry coon, whose determined to climb to the top of the social ladder. Fellows, who has made a career of parsing out the tensions that lie between upstairs and downstairs life, honing in on the maladies and melodrama of the ostentatiously wealthy, follows in the legacy of Edith Wharton. The American novelist known for conjuring stories of high octane drama in the insular world of high society is one of the foremost authors associated with the Gilded Age. Fellows himself has cited Wharton's work, the house of mirth and the custom of the country as influences on his own work. For Wharton, who was the first woman to win a Pulitzer and literature for her 1920 novel, the age of innocence, the social mores and hyper specific accounts of luxury and scandal came from firsthand experience, born Edith Jones to a wealthy, old money family, Wharton's paternal family is related to the Astor family and are rumored to be the Joneses in the idiom keeping up with the Joneses, Wharton, like many of her heroines faced challenges in living life on her own terms as a woman in a society ruled by rigid rules and morals. This, however, provided rich fodder for her as a writer, helping her to create books that were filled with emotion, longing, and plenty of drama. With that in mind, here are 5 Wharton novels to read to get your Gilded Age fix after watching the new HBO series. The age of innocence in the age of innocence published in 1920, social mores and familial responsibility keep two star crossed lovers apart over the course of three decades. Newland archer, a wealthy lawyer, and one of New York's most eligible bachelors is set to marry may welland, an innocent girl from one of society's top families. However, there soon to be marital bliss is disrupted by the arrival of mace gorgeous and exotic cousin. Countess Ellen alinsky, who has left her cruel husband who is a Polish count, inevitably, Nuland falls in love with Ellen, leading to a wistful love triangle filled with longing and unfulfilled desire. Custom of the country neither low social standing or hapless partners can deter undine sprag and ambitious young woman from the Midwest from climbing New York City's social ladder in Morton's the custom of the country, released in 1913. In the novel sprag navigates the rigid rules of high society, learning that her family's newfound wealth doesn't quite stack up to an old blue blood social pedigree, while she cycles through husbands, affairs, and dean soon discovers that an old flame who's just as ambitious and unconnected as her may be her best match in the end. The house of mirth Wharton's sharpest critique of how hostile high society could be to a woman, in spite of her social standing or wealth, is her 1905 novel, the house of mirth. Centering on the tragic tale of lily Bart, a winsome and well born but financially struggling young woman who was wrecked by the stringent social mores and cruel slights of New York City's high society as lily grows older and prospects of marriage to a wealthy and well connected man began to wane, she survives on wit, and the hope of a life with more freedom, but in the end, the world as she knows it grows smaller and smaller until she runs out of options for a viable future. The reef. The reef published in 1912, centers on a love affair, rekindled between Anna leith, a wealthy widow, and her former flame, George Darrow, an American diplomat, the affair is complicated when Darrow begins a secret liaison with a young woman named Sophie, who he later finds out is not only Anna's daughter's governess, but is also engaged to be married to Anna's stepson Owen. Summer. In summer, published 1917, charity royal, a young woman of low birth is smitten when New York City architect lucius harney visits her small New England town for the summer. Lucius moves into the home of charities guardian lawyer royal, a widower who lusts for charity. After lucius and charity begin an affair, she hopes for a marriage to him that will bring her love and a ticket out of town, but lucius's fickle affection and a life altering event will change the course of clarity's future.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"edith jones" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Had behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel Your honor Joining me is Liga litman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued But the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court set the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you test the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is Zola fiing people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case just higginson in the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court appeals after the federal oral argument on this motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as in a meeting because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court confused case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite casti oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg You you come into bed Hun Yep honey I'll be right there Just gotta turn.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"edith jones" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel No your honor Joining me is Leah littman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leo this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued What the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state laws That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court sent the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you have the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is Zola fiing people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay as resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case judge higginson and the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court appeals optic federal oral argument on the motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as in a mucus because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court's office case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite casby oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg Introducing venture.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"edith jones" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Had behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel No your honor Joining me is Leah littman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued With the United States Supreme Court set is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court sent the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you Texas Supreme Court needs to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different companions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold onto the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is vilifying people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case just higginson in the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court of skills offered to schedule oral arguments on the motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as an amuse because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court's office case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite hefty oral argument Thanks Leo That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg I haven't really woken up Until I've had my McDonald's breakfast deal and I know this is true because before breakfast I put my phone in the refrigerator and couldn't find the keys that were already in my hand Nothing gets the morning going like the first sip of it iced coffee Get any size in any flavor for 99 cents until 11 a.m. Price and participation may vary McDonald's.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"edith jones" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Do you appreciate my difficult do you like to persuade me I don't sense that you're intimidating So you don't need any assistance I've asked you to question any premise I've made So if the suggestion is I'm litigating push back on any premise that I've had behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel No your honor Joining me is Lee and litman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued What the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FDA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court sent the case back down to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you test the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority disciplined doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states to continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow taxes to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is nullifying people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case judge higginson and the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court reveals after the federal oral argument on the motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as an avid gift because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court office case wrong and so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a testy oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leah lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg The names Introducing venture.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"edith jones" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"5th circuit oral arguments over whether the Texas Supreme Court should weigh in on the Texas law banning most abortions was unusual because of the frequent sparring between two judges with one judge telling the other that this court doesn't litigate on behalf of one side or the other Joining me is Leah lipman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court So tell us what's happening at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued What the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court set the case back down to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you test the Supreme Court needs to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA So how would it help the abortion providers if licensing boards were found to have the authority to discipline doctors about this If the licensing officials do have the authority to discipline doctors who violate FDA then the abortion providers tend to them Under the course sovereign immunity jurisprudence individual plaintiffs are required to name as defendants in lawsuits some state officer who has some connection to the enforcement of a law And if these state licensing officials can indeed discipline doctors who violate the law then they have enforcement authority and they can be sued as defendants This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request and just kind of ace in the back of the pocket in order to allow the states to continue to enforce this law even after their arguments had been rejected at the United States Supreme Court was one running concern and through line and point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow taxes to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period And so it seems like one of the judges on the Court of Appeals understands the time sensitive nature of this case The law is currently in effect and is vilifying people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row How unusual is it to decide to put off the case until the Supreme Court decides when the Supreme Court has sent the case back to the 5th circuit to decide It's extremely unusual for the Court of Appeals to consider a motion for certification at this stage because that no previous point either in the Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court did the Texas officials press the course to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic If the state officials actually had wanted to have the Supreme Court to weigh in and thought that was necessary to the court's resolution that these cases they could have and would have requested that earlier Coming up what's likely to happen here This is Bloomberg With.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"edith jones" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"So this is what we're going to do. Virginia is deserve it. They deserve this kind of team and as I said, I'm really inspired by the quality and caliber of the folks that we're seeing. And we're working hard every day. I'm deeply engaged. It's one of these things you don't delegate away. You've got to do yourself. So we have a great team around us running the transition and I'm really really pleased that so many people put their hand up and we're volunteered to help us. But I'm here. I'm here Richmond and the transition office engaged in making sure that this goes the way I want it to go. Governor, like, you don't get dating back, dating myself, Vis-à-vis you. I was a young lawyer working for Fred fielding and dick houser in the Reagan White House in the second term. And they were great, great lawyers. And Fred and dick developed a trapdoor question on the office of personnel management and the office of presidential personnel forum that came to the lawyers. Is there anything in your past that if it becomes public and on the front page of The Washington Post, would embarrass the president? Are you asking that of everyone because if there is something in someone's past that they don't tell you after you've asked? That's on them. But if you don't ask, it's on you. Yet rest assured, we're not only asking, but we're also doing our checking to. And I think this is a critical part of putting together a great team is that you don't have situations that would distract people from getting the job done. At the end of the day, virginians have sent us here to deliver on our day one game plan and to represent all virginians. And so we have to have folks that can get to work on an unencumbered basis and get it done. And that's why I have constantly as we've gone through the review of folks. Said there are going to be any issues and the great result is that there is just so many qualified people who can get to work immediately. And who are ready to go? And this is part of, I think this movement you. This campaign moved from just a normal gubernatorial campaign to a movement and its sure brought people out of the woodwork who might not have considered coming to work in the Commonwealth of Virginia or stepping out of a giant career into public service and boy, it's brought them it's brought him out of the woodwork and I am so excited about this. Well, I think you've inspired Democrats and independence as well as Republicans with the hope that there is a government out there at the state level that would do what Doug ducey has done in Arizona, which is just take the best and the brightest available to them and put them to work. And on this secretary of education and superintendent of education, I am reminded that president George H. W. Bush in one room he had David souter in another room he had Edith Jones. He had short interviews with both. He picked the wrong one. Because David sooner did not genuinely reveal himself. Edith Jones did not genuinely reveal herself enough. She was very candid, but president Bush did not ask the right question of David souter, which was very specific about row. How are you getting to the core beliefs of your secretary of education and superintendent of school so that they will be aligned with you when it comes to renewing and invigorating and excelling in Virginia public education and higher education? Well, in today's world, we have a deep, deep transparency on what people believe because people write and social media posts so much of their belief system. On top of that, the reality is, my day one agenda is going to be our day one agenda. And we're going to make sure that the folks that are selected into this administration are fully aligned with what we're going to go get done. This isn't a moment for freelancing. This is a moment for us to deliver what we have promised we're going to go do. And particularly on education, this is an extraordinarily important time for us to lead to make sure that we have high standards in our schools and yes, we will have a very, they will have the largest education budget in the history of Virginia for teacher salaries and facilities and special education. Our charter school initiative is incredibly important to get rolling on and that's going to really provide choice within the public school system and finally curriculum. And the big issues around making sure that we teach all history, the good and the bad. So that we know where we've come from. So we know where we're going, but we also have to get critical race theory elements out of the classroom. We've got to get politics out of the classroom. And so these are the thresholds, philosophical issues, but also action points for our Department of Education. And we're going to make sure that our leadership there is fully aligned. Well, I'm very impressed by your team, especially by misses junk. By Jeff ro, I like them all. I think they're all very impressive. But I hope you sit down at length with both your secretary of education and superintendent and really probe the way that I wish president Bush had David souter because some people just lie. Some people don't disclose, and they just do it very well. And they might not have record. Last bit of special pleading governor. I've got a military spouse as a daughter. You've got a lot of military spouses in Virginia. Who is going to be their ombudsman? Do you have a do you have a post for that? Because that's a special community with special needs, especially in the Commonwealth. Well, it was a big part of our overall approach to serving our military and our veterans, particularly as families. And therefore, I do believe that as we press forward on our entire veteran and military agenda, I think families and military spouses are going to see a much different approach from this administration. One of the things that we know is that they have a substantially different stress on them than a normal family. And so we have to support it. And that's why we want Virginia to be the most military friendly state in America. For active military and our veterans, because one out of 11, virginians is a veteran, and it makes our it makes our communities better and that starts with treating families well while folks are in active duty, but then also making sure when they transition into their civilian life after their service to our country that they stay in Virginia and build their next chapter. So this is a really important part of our agenda. That terrific governor, no David suitors, no Larry o'connors, but when we talk next, I hope that you've done the research and then I can be warden of the Potomac post ports and keeper of the coast. Governor elect young have a very Merry Christmas. I know it's special to you and your family. Thank your family for their sacrifice that they've made and will be making. I appreciate your joining me this morning. You thank you so much for having me as always. I so enjoyed you have a blessed season. You too. There you go. Warden the Potomac post. Basically, blackballed Larry.
Verdict with Ted Cruz
"edith jones" Discussed on Verdict with Ted Cruz
"Justice even the most liberal justices agreed with that result but this potential divide among the more conservative justices could be powerful foreshadowing for what may play out next year. When there's several big cases coming down including a major abortion case including a major second amendment case if there is really a divide. If we see cavenaugh siding with roberts more and even potentially barrett siding with roberts more than suddenly on an abortion case. It's not clear where there are five votes on the court and so it puts real uncertainty to wear. The court's majority is going to go next year and in the years to come. I just have to know before we get to the obamacare case. I just have to get this off my chest. Senator are we ever going to have a reliably conservative court because i know republicans have put their blood sweat and tears into electing people to the presidency into getting through the judges on the nomination and yet to invoke the title of your book. We always seem to be one. Vote away on really crucial cases. Well and and you're right and there's a reason for that. I mentioned the last chapter my book where i go through the history of supreme court. Nominations and there is a pattern. If you look at the justices who have been principled. Constitutionalists people like scalia. People like thomas people like my former boss. William rehnquist people like alito. They all had a pattern. They have all had significant records in government typically the executive branch they of all defended the constitution defended conservative positions. And they've been excoriated. They faced withering criticism and abuse and they have it wavered. And that's the pattern that has produced justices who have the the spinal fortitude to withstand the pressure on the court on the other hand. When you have justices that that don't have a paper record that that have been Very careful very guarded avoided saying anything almost without fail. They turn out to be disastrous so focused on a couple of key decisions george herbert walker bush when he was president he in one room david suitor hitter in another room. A judge named edith jones. Edith jones was the strongest conservative her generation. She was on the fifth circuit. She was rock ribbed suitor with someone who had never expressed an opinion on any contested constitutionally. His whole life he had no paper trail. Bush forty one picks suitor instead of jones. That was a catastrophic mistake fast. Forward bush forty three bush forty three had in one room. John roberts and in another room my old boss on the court of appeals. Mike ludwig mike ludik was at that time. The same thing. Edith jones had been unquestionably the strongest conservative appellate judge in the country rock ribbed. He'd been scalia's very first law clerk has been an incredible friend and mentor to be bush. Forty three like his father went with the easier choice. Roberts had been very careful about what he said. He didn't have that many controversial positions. It was an easier confirmation that proved a major decision. Had they not made those decisions obamacare would have been struck down. Had they not made those decisions we would have seen some major major victories. And had i been in the white house. I would have picked edith jones and not david suitor pick. Mike ludik and not john roberts and then when it came to president trump's nominations look..