35 Burst results for "Elena Kagan"
AP News Radio
Justice Thomas wrote of 'crushing weight' of student loans
"The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will take up a challenge to the Biden administration's student debt relief program, and at least one justice has previously noted how crushing that debt can be. Conservative justice clarence Thomas is expected to vote against the Biden administration's efforts to wipe away some $20,000 in student debt. But he has written about the role that student loans played in his own financial struggles. In his memoir, my grandfather's son, Thomas described looking for a way to quote get out from under the crushing weight of all my student loans, which stayed with him until his third year on the nation's highest court. While none of the justices would comment for this story, many have invested in tax free college savings accounts for their children and justice Elena Kagan when she was dean of the Harvard Law School. Set up a work study program allowing free tuition for students in their final year. I'm Jackie Quinn.
Northwest Newsradio
"elena kagan" Discussed on Northwest Newsradio
"Me and says, what's Al Baghdadi's phone call? Phone number, I'd like to call him. And I give him the phone number. I'm aiding and abetting, even if I don't say and I hope you'll join ISIS. I don't understand that you called I mean, if you call information and ask for Abu Dhabi's number and they give it to you, I don't see how that's aiding and abetting. And I don't understand how a neutral suggestion about something that you've expressed an interest in. Is aiding and abetting. Justice is like Elena Kagan seemed concerned about upending the Internet and their interpretation of section two 30 of the communications decency act, that shields companies from lawsuits over content posted on their sites. Why is it that the tech industry gets to pass? A little bit unclear. On the other hand, I mean, we're a court. We really don't know about these things. These are not the 9 greatest experts on the Internet. Kagan says Congress not the court should make changes. If I put in a search and they give me materials that they believe answers, my search, no matter how they organize it, that they're okay. Do you survive, does your complaint survive if I believe two 30 goes that far? So it's depends on what materials they present you with. The case Wednesday involves another terrorist attack and prompted a lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook and Google. I'm Julie Walker. 12 after new details in the killing of a temple university police officer, when America in
Northwest Newsradio
"elena kagan" Discussed on Northwest Newsradio
"Al Baghdadi's phone call? Phone number, I'd like to call it. And I give them the phone number. I'm aiding and abetting, even if I don't say and I hope you'll join ISIS. I don't understand that. I mean, if you call an information and ask for Abu Dhabi's number and they give it to you, I don't see how that's aiding and abetting. And I don't understand how a neutral suggestion about something that you've expressed an interest in. Is aiding and abetting. Justice is like Elena Kagan seemed concerned about upending the Internet and their interpretation of section two 30 of the communications decency act, that shields companies from lawsuits over content posted on their sites. Why is it that the tech industry gets to pass? A little bit unclear. On the other hand, I mean, we're a court. We really don't know about these things. These are not the 9 greatest experts on the Internet. Kagan says Congress, not the court, should make changes. If I put in a search and they give me materials that they believe answers, my search, no matter how they organize it, that they're okay. Do you survive, does your complaint survive if I believe two 30 goes that far? So depends on what materials they present you with. The case Wednesday involves another terrorist attack and prompted a lawsuit against Twitter, Facebook and Google. I'm Julie Walker. 12 after new details in the killing of a temple university police
Mark Levin
Justice Elena Kagan: No State Remedies for Gerrymandering
"So here's justice Elena Kagan During the hearing today cut 15 go If I could mister Thompson I'd like to step back a bit And just think about consequences Because this is a theory with big consequences It would say that if a legislature engages in the most extreme forms of gerrymandering there is no state constitutional remedy for that even if the courts think that that's a violation That's not true We're not talking about violations of the constitution for instance The state legislature were too congressional districts in a way that violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution which was ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures I will remind you That is one of the post Civil War amendments A state legislature is not free to do that In other words a state legislature is not free to violate the federal constitution or the state constitution And that's not what we're talking about We're talking about a Supreme Court such as Pennsylvania deciding well we're going to extend the counting of ballots in other week Well you don't have to actually sign the envelope Well you don't have to actually date the envelope even though that state law
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Get to a world of national news Nancy Lyons and her 99 one studio. Hey Nancy. Thanks, Tim. Georgia's closely watched Senate race is in its final stages as you've been hearing. Recent polling shows democratic senator Raphael Warnock has a narrow lead over Republican challenger Herschel Walker out of tomorrow's runoff. He's urging his supporters to show up. Let's get this thing done. One more time, God bless you after Georgia. Herschel Walker is also sounding confident. He's gonna be former Sanders guards at the time for him to go and let me tell you right now, don't let that door hit you in the bright side and you walk out of the people off. That's what we need to get to. Early voting wrapped up in George over the weekend with almost 2 million votes already in. Laurie Smith, a website creator in Colorado, who's willing to serve gay customers is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the state from requiring her to design their wedding websites. Bloomberg surf Chapman has more in today's arguments before the court. Yes, it's Elena Kagan asked smith's lawyer, Kristen waggoner about a couple who asked for the same design she did previously for Mike and Mary, but this time it's Mike and Mark. Clients are coming in and they're saying, we just want to standard website. No ideology. There is ideology. She believes that same sex weddings contradict scripture. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the case might hinge on whether a web designer as a creative artist, or no different from the caterer, who is subject to anti discrimination law. In Washington or Chapman Bloomberg radio. One of the original human stars of Sesame Street has died, bob McGrath
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Piggies calling in the Dutch and for all the little piggies life is getting worse? A new California law requires the humane treatment of pigs, but pork producers say the greatest impact of the law would be outside California, threatening the $26 billion a year pork industry. At oral arguments this week, the question of one state imposing its moral values on another was a key concern for the justices, one that cut across ideological lines. Here's chief justice John Roberts and justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. Under your analysis, it's California's view of morality to prevails over the views of people in other states because of the market power that they have. You know, do we want to live in a world where we're constantly at each other's throats and Texas is at war with California and California at war with Texas. As I understand California's position charitably, it's that Californians, 63% of them voted for this law. They don't wish to have California be complicit, even indirectly in. Livestock practices that they find abort. Wherever they occur. My guest is Harold grant, a professor at the Chicago Kent college of law. He'll tell us about this California law that hasn't even gone into effect yet. The law says that California will not import pork products if the breeder pigs or the sows have been placed in inhumane conditions and most tweeting styles are kept in little crates that can't even turn around. California's law has a huge impact outside of the state, only about .13% of all pork in this country is raised in California and yet California consumes 13% of pork in the nation. And so with that kind of dramatic impact is that this regulation will increase the price of pork across the country because poor producers can't segregate their pigs and they have to have their pigs all usually together and the products are usually intermingled and so therefore be very expensive to segregate pig raising for just the California market as opposed to the rest of the country. Now, that's debated. We haven't had any fact finding on. Is it going to be a 5% raise in prices, 3%, 10%, but there will be some increased expense across the country because of this regulation. The pork producers claim the law violates the dormant commerce clause. Tell me how that argument goes. So court is very used to challenges that certain state regulations violate the dormant commerce clause. They have been not hospitable to those in the past because there's a tension between states trying to help their own citizens but also putting a damper on commerce out of the state and they traditionally have said that the state can not enact a protectionist measure in a state can not discriminate explicitly against commerce from another state, but as long as it's good faith regulation internally within the state that that should survive any kind of dormant commerce clause challenge. This case is a little different. And so I think the court struggled with it because on the one hand, you're trying to protect the sensibilities of California by saying we only will allow humanely slaughtered pigs to enter into the market and that's a different kind of claim than we've seen in the past and it clearly has some kind of significant burden on out of state commerce because over 99% of all pig farming takes place outside of California. The pork producers say the law unlawfully regulates farmers in other states, but those farmers don't have to sell their pork in California. They don't, but California because of its size has 13% of the market. And so states like New York, California, and Texas have a disproportionate impact upon commerce in the United States. And so producers have to listen to what those three states in particular say is that they have an outsized impact on the market. That being said, it is clear that if California banned all importation of pork because of perceived health reasons into
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Supreme Court is back in session and on the docket cases covering everything from the right to vote, gerrymandering, affirmative action, and also gay rights. There's a variety of topics to him. A common thread among them may be the likely clashes among those who sit on America's highest court. And the millions of people their decisions will affect. This story is in the remarks section of the new issue of Bloomberg businessweek and the editor of Bloomberg business week, Joe Weber joins us once again along with Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter, Greg store. There may not be a single case quite as big as the dots case with overrule the constitutional right to abortion. But we're going to have a huge college affirmative action fight coming up on October 31st. There are a couple of very big voting cases involving partisan gerrymandering and so called racial gerrymandering. We've got cases involving gay rights and whether people have a business owners have a free speech right to say I don't want to take part in the same sex wedding, all these things are the kind of cultural issues that divide the country and divide the court, increasingly in a conservative way. So Greg, what's the one that you think is going to be probably well, back up here, right? We've had this sort of court that was a little bit more balanced in decisions. What are the decisions of the cases that you kind of just rattled up there? Where's the power imbalance start to look like? Well, you look at the affirmative action case, for example. That is actually two cases before the Supreme Court. I want to involving Harvard one involving the university of North Carolina. And in this case takes direct these appeals take direct aim in 2003 Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed that universities can use race as an admissions factor for the sake of enhancing diversity on campus. And that's something that the large majority of selective universities do, they say if you overturn that, it's going to have a devastating effect on their ability to make sure there's a significant number of black and Hispanic and Native American students on campus. That's a case where you can see this court's change of membership, the three Trump appointees who made the court more conservative. You can see that there are very likely going to make a difference. It's a case actually where chief justice John Roberts, who we know in some cases, has not been willing to go as far as some of this conservative colleagues. On this issue, it keeps kind of been in the Vanguard saying, I believe in a colorblind constitution, the constitution doesn't permit racial discrimination and he has suggested he sees these race conscious admissions as racial discrimination. What's interesting there though is what we learned last time is that Roberts is maybe his own man on this court and that you've got several justices to the right of him and several to the left. And that also you have this line here that the court faces at least the specter of a legitimacy crisis, if not a full blown one, talk about what that means, you know, the court going its own way here and sort of America the American public's reaction to that. Well, let's start with it. The American public's reaction, we've seen declining confidence in the courts declining the court's approval ratings, not surprisingly, but noteworthy. That's especially with Democrats. Overwhelmingly Democrats now say they disapprove of the Supreme Court. And over the summer in a couple of different presentations justice Elena Kagan, one of the liberal justices without actually naming names and talking about particular cases, but she talked about what in her mind creates a legitimate legitimacy problem for a court and she talked about if you have the same issue being decided that a different way because the court's membership has changed. And one could certainly think about cases like the abortion case is fitting into that category. And so when you have a justice on the court, at least raising that Specter, it's certainly something for all of us to pay attention to. Greg, I want to dive into the elections that a little bit and how elections could shift under the Supreme Court. What could they do specifically to make it so state supreme courts have a different hand in elections? Yes. So there are two big election cases. And the one involving state Supreme Court has to do with a North Carolina redistricting fight. And so let me just back up for a second. I remember a few years ago the Supreme Court said, we, the Supreme Court interpreting the U.S. Constitution, don't have authority to say that voting districts are so partisan. They're unconstitutional. They said that sort of partisan gerrymandering claim doesn't fly in federal court, but they left open the possibility that a state Supreme Court could say, hey, under our state constitution, these districts you've drawn are unconstitutional. And that's what happened in this North Carolina case. And now the question that the Supreme Court and it can be a really far reaching one is whether the U.S. Constitution limits what a state Supreme Court can do. The U.S. Constitution, when it talks about drawing districts and setting voting rules for congressional elections, says that the power to do that lies with the state legislature and so the question is whether the North Carolina Supreme Court kind of overstepped its bounds in doing something that only the North Carolina state legislature can do. And this issue could apply in a whole variety of contexts, potentially including presidential elections. That was Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter Greg store, along with the editor of Bloomberg businessweek, Joel Weber. You're listening to Bloomberg business week. Up next, a new book shines a light on the nation's most notorious far right group. How the Proud Boys created a new blueprint for extremism and turned American politics into a blood sport after the 2016 election. It's
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. The Supreme Court said on Monday that a football coach who knelt and prayed on the field surrounded by players after games at a public high school was protected by the constitution. The liberal and conservative justices disagreed on whether the students would feel pressured to join the prayers, in violation of the establishment clause which prohibits religious coercion. Here are justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh during the oral arguments That puts a kind of undue pressure, a kind of coercion on students to participate in the deception activities, when they may not wish to when their religion is different or when they have no religion. There's a difference between the coach in the locker room. I got it there. The coach and the huddle that got it there as well. But when players are dispersing after the game, I guess I'm not sure how it's that much different from establishment clause perspective. I've been talking to professor Caroline mala Corbin of the university of Miami law school. Caroline what's left of the establishment clause in these public school cases. Establishment clause protections in school exist in May. According to the Supreme Court, it is still true that prayers and schools that coerce students to participate against their will will violate the establishment clause. However, they were rarely find that to be in the case before it was presumed that Christian prayers in school would be coercive. Now, you have to prove it. And even if you do prove it, they might still not believe it. Another problematic friend in the Supreme Court is that any attempt to enforce establishment clause values is described as hostility to religion, which is not at all the case, because again, the point of the establishment clause is to protect the religious liberty of religious minority. So the very description of affirming establishment clause values that hostility to religion is already erasing the religious liberty interest of the religious minorities. It's also just eliminating any room for the establishment clause, simply the free exercise clause is pretty much eating oxygen establishment costs. We've been talking about the court reversing precedent in the abortion case. Did the court overturn precedent here as well. Just the abortion case was very explicit that it was overruling precedent. And it stated that right in the decision. This case does what the Supreme Court usually does when it changes the law. Is that it changes the law without acknowledging the fact that it's changing the law. But the existing law prior to this decision is that schools sponsored prayers violate the establishment law. That has always been the rule. So whether it was she giving a prayer, whether they invited someone to give a prayer whether they had a school program that they approved of were a student gave a prayer again regularly, school prayer violated the establishment clause. And this case said the school prayer does not violate the establishment clause, even though it was a school teacher coach. It's like the school itself was giving a prayer. Here they're trying to finesse it by saying, no, no, no, no. Granted, it was the school teacher, but he wasn't acting in his official capacity. He was acting in his private capacity. So they're trying to wiggle around this very clear rule that the school may not pray, and did the court change the test the way it's going to analyze these establishment clause cases from now on. Yeah. You asked if they overrule precedent. And they are, in terms of how they plan to analyze establishment clause challenges. So in this case, they seem to reject not only the lemon test, but also the endorsement tests. Both of which have long been part of the establishment clause jurisprudence. Granted the hostility to lemon has been long and vociferous for a while now. But the court is moving establishment clause, not just away from that, but also toward historical practices and understanding. So once again, the Supreme Court seems to be saying in the future when we analyze establishment clause questions, the main thing we're going to focus on is not whether there is a religious purpose to this law, whether it has a relief effect, we're just going to see whether it was allowed in history. And if it was allowed in history, then it's probably just fine today. And this is a trend we're seeing across many different areas of the law where the Supreme Court is making historical practices to touchstone of our rights today, which is a really problematic approach to constitutional rights given our history does not treat everyone fairly and equally. History should not be a guide for our rights because history favors powerful. Second, history doesn't offer clear answers. And so the Supreme Court is going to find in history exactly what it needs to get the outcome it wants. It's infinitely manipulable. And third, the court's bad in history. They're not trained historians. If you actually asked his story ends with the view is, this Second Amendment case, the abortion case, they're going to tell you the Supreme Court did not do a good job interpreting history. Thanks, Caroline. That's professor Caroline mala Corbin of the university of Miami law school. Coming up, Biden's climate agenda takes a hit. This is Bloomberg. The take
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Interpretation of statutes, I think this question of whether the court views a rule as presenting a major question is now the determinant of what's going to happen in a case. It may be that if the court says, well, this rule doesn't meet whatever we think of as a major question. Then you might see some form of deference to an agency. It's not going to be the kind of deference that Chevron of course authored by justice Scalia talked about where the court must defer to a quote reasonable interpretation of a quote ambiguous statute. Now it's going to be the question is, is the rule you're proposing major because if we say it's major, you're not going to get any difference. If we say it's not major, we'll be willing to look at the way the agency views it. And if it's a if it's a technical rule within the agency's expertise within their so called Wheelhouse, then you might see even this court deferring. And I have to say it'll be interesting to see whether or not rules that seem to deregulate on environmental issues get some deference. Whereas environmental rules don't. So we'll have to keep an eye on right now the major question doctrine has never been used to validate an agency rule. It's only been used to strike them down. In the dissent by justice Elena Kagan
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio In a case that could mean the difference between an immigrant staying in the country or being deported the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to four decision that federal courts can't review factual decisions made by immigration officials even if there are mistakes Patel entered the U.S. illegally some 30 years ago an immigration official or a Patel be deported because he checked a box indicating he was a U.S. citizen when applying for a Georgia driver's license The case centers on an immigration law that prevents federal courts from reviewing decisions made at the discretion of immigration officials so there are many questions and some confusion of the oral arguments over whether the immigration officials decision here involved discretion or fact finding Here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Elena Kagan quizzing deputy solicitor general Austin raynor The factual issue at issue here is not that It's what was his intent when he checked the box Correct Did he But he's asked questions about what his intent was right And that your credibility comes into that right In terms of assessing the answer to this historical question the immigration judge did consider his credibility on the stand I mean the fact that he's later asked questions and his credibility is an issue doesn't make the underlying factual issue less factual I agree justice Kagan and nobody is suggesting that what are you agreeing to I mean I don't understand is it an exercise You think no discretion is involved in examining credibility My guest is Leon fresco a partner at Holland and knight Leon Patel claims he checked that U.S. citizen box by mistake because he didn't need to be a U.S. citizen to get a driver's license under Georgia law What's interesting is he was trying to remedy his side of being undocumented through a green card application that would come by virtue of his family having a petition for a green card for him because he had U.S. citizen children And during a time where he actually had no legal reason to check a box on a Georgia state driver's license but said he was the U.S. citizen he accidentally goes ahead and proceeds to check a box saying he's a U.S. citizen He did not need to say yes to because he had a pending ring card application of the vine which was sufficient basis in and of itself to give him a license And so the government raises this as a reason to deny his green card application Then the government puts them in removal proceeding and he then tried to renew this argument saying hey I should have a green card The sort of tragic case of just checking this one box by mistake has certainly the four defending justice of the body checks that my mistake now leads to him never being able to get a green card Tell us about justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion So what the Supreme Court found is that even though the U.S. government meaning the Biden administration and the applicants themselves were on the same page saying there is this authority to review They agreed with a decision from the 11th circuit which is that no No decisions even if their decisions about facts that are part of this discretionary green card process can be reviewed So this is actually a significant limitation in the future on judicial review in the green card application context The basically make the product almost any decision that is being made even if it's completely wrong so if the government says you are a polygamist and you say what are you talking about Where are there two marriage certificates that show I'm a polygamist You could not actually get that reviewed in the Supreme Court or in any other federal court because now none of that's going to be reviewable under the logic that the green card application itself is discretionary So it doesn't matter None of the underlying factual determination can be reviewed So to clarify Leon these green card decisions are being made by immigration judges who are Justice Department lawyers And under this ruling a federal judge can't review that green card decision So in essence one immigration official is the be all and end all in these cases Correct That's part of a green card application That's correct Meaning that if anybody is making a decision as part of a green card application not just that to the discretionary decision at the end give it or not based on discretion But also on any of the facts are you a polygamist Are you at a legal gambler Are you a drug dealer Are you any of these things You will have no opportunity to go in and review any of those 5 even if they're completely wrong because of the Supreme Court that said well because the larger determination is discretionary that covers everything even the factual determination Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the liberals and he wrote the dissent saying today the court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error one that will result in an individual's removal from this country and nothing can be done about it Correct It is a dramatic expansion of this non reviewability doctorate Over the last 30 years the core time sort of expanded in every way shape and form to come to the reviewability in these immigration cases that this is sort of a big what I would call empire strike back moments in which really there is a dramatic curtailment of judicial review here and frankly in the context where it's probably most likely needed These mistakes get made all the time and now if there's no judicial review one there's no error correction that's available which is a problem of in and of itself It's a huge problem But number two then more errors are likely to be made when people know that there's no error correction This is one of the factors of judicial review that people underrate is that if people know that their decision will be reviewed they're much more likely to make the correct decision in the first place And so from that standpoint this is quite a dramatic change for people going through the immigration system And justice Gorsuch has sided with the liberals in another immigration case recently Well I think this is an interesting trend So justice Gorsuch has actually now in two cases One is called Nick Chavez and wanted this case saying that he is going to hold the government to a very strict standard on deportation cases because deportation is such a drastic penalty that's being given to immigrants He wants the government to follow every detail perfectly and he won there to be judicial review Miss Chavez that was the case about whether the government has to by law give you the time and date of your hearing There he ruled yet You have to give the exact notice the date.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"June grosso from Bloomberg radio In a case that could mean the difference between an immigrant staying in the country or being deported the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to four decision that federal courts can't review factual decisions made by immigration officials even if they were mistakes Entered the U.S. illegally some 30 years ago an immigration official or it Patel be deported because he checked a box indicating he was a U.S. citizen when applying for a Georgia driver's license The case centers on an immigration law that prevents federal courts from reviewing decisions made at the discretion of immigration officials so there are many questions and some confusion at the oral arguments over whether the immigration officials decision here involved discretion or fact finding Here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Elena Kagan quizzing deputy solicitor general Austin raynor The factual issue at issue here is not that It's what was his intent when he checked the box Correct Did he But he's asked questions about what his intent was right And that credibility comes into that right In terms of assessing the answer to this historical question the immigration judge did consider his credibility on the stand I mean the fact that he's later asked questions and his credibility is an issue doesn't make the underlying factual issue less factual I agree justice Kagan and nobody is suggesting that what are you agreeing to I mean I don't understand is it an exercise You think no discretion is involved in examining credibility My guest is Leon fresco a partner at Holland and knight Leon Patel claims he checked that U.S. citizen box by mistake because he didn't need to be a U.S. citizen to get a driver's license under Georgia law What's interesting is he was trying to remedy his father for being undocumented through a green card application that would come by virtue of his family having a petition for a green card for him because he had U.S. citizen children And during a time where he actually had no legal reason to check a box on a Georgia state driver's license that said he was the U.S. citizen he accidentally goes to heaven proceed to check a box saying he's a U.S. citizen He did not need to say yes because he had a pending ring card application of the vine which was sufficient basis in and of itself to give him a license And so the government raises this as a reason to deny his green card application Then the government puts them in removal proceeding and he then tried to renew this argument saying hey I should have a green card The sort of tragic case of just checking this one box by mistake has certainly the board defending justice of body checked by mistake Now lead to him never being able to get a green card Tell us about justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion So what the Supreme Court found is that even though the U.S. government meaning the Biden administration and the applicants themselves were on the same page there is this authority to review They agreed with a decision from the 11th circuit which is that no no decisions even if their decisions about facts that are part of this discretionary green card process can be reviewed So this is actually a significant limitation in the future on judicial review in the green card application context The basically make the almost any decision that is being made even if it's completely wrong So if the government says you are a polygamist and you say what are you talking about Where are there two marriage certificates So Joe I'm a polygamist You could not actually get that reviewed in the Supreme Court or in any other federal court because now none of that's going to be reviewable under the logic that the green card application itself is discretionary So it doesn't matter None of the underlying factual determination can be reviewed So to clarify Leon these green card decisions are being made by immigration judges who are Justice Department lawyers And under this ruling a federal judge can't review that green card decision So in essence one immigration official is the be all and end all in these cases Correct That's part of a green card application That's correct Meaning that if anybody is making a decision as part of a green card application not just that to the discretionary decision at the end give it or not based on discretion but also on any of the facts Are you a polygamist Are you at a legal gambler Are you a drug dealer Are you any of these things You will have no opportunity to go in and review any of those 5 even if they're completely wrong because of the Supreme Court has said well because the larger determination is discretionary that covers everything even the factual determination Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the liberals and he wrote the dissent saying today the court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error one that will result in an individual's removal from this country and nothing can be done about it Correct It is a dramatic expansion of this non reviewability doctorate Over the last 30 years the core type sort of expanded in every way shape and form to come to the reviewability in these immigration cases And this is sort of a big what I would call empire strike back moment in which really there is a dramatic curtailment of judicial review here and frankly in the context where it's probably most likely needed These mistakes get made all the time and now if there's no judicial review one there's no error correction that's available which is a problem in and of itself It's a huge problem But number two then more errors are likely to be made when people know that there's no error correction This is one of the factors of judicial review that people underwrite is that if people know that their decision will be reviewed they're much more likely to make the correct decision in the first place And so from that standpoint this is quite a dramatic change for people going through the immigration system And justice Gorsuch has sided with the liberals in another immigration case recently Well I think this is an interesting trend So justice Gorsuch has actually now in two cases One is called Nick Chavez and wanted this case saying that he is going to hold the government to a very strict standard on deportation cases because deportation is such a drastic penalty that's being given to immigrants He wants the government to follow every detail perfectly and he won there to be judicial review miss Chavez that was the case about whether the government has to by law give you the time and date of your hearing There he ruled yet You have to give the exact notice that they and tying perfectly you can't subsequently fix it later And so here he's doing the same thing he saying look when the government gets back wrong the court should be able to review it How many people could be affected by this decision How many are suing over factual errors made in the green card process I would bet on an average year you might see less than two 3000 of those But then what's interesting is what does that mean moving forward when the government knows that there isn't going to be this review How many lawsuits would have been filed because of new errors that are going to be made that now can't be filed That's the kind of thing that's not quantifiable Thanks Leon That's Leon fresco of Holland and knight coming up next Why is Elon Musk using legalese to talk about buying Twitter This is Bloomberg Susan I'm sorry I'm late.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June brusso from Bloomberg radio In a case that could mean the difference between an immigrant staying in the country or being deported the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to four decision that federal courts can't review factual decisions made by immigration officials even if they were mistakes Patel entered the U.S. illegally some 30 years ago an immigration official or a Patel be deported because he checked a box indicating he was a U.S. citizen when applying for a Georgia driver's license The case centers on an immigration law that prevents federal courts from reviewing decisions made at the discretion of immigration officials so there are many questions and some confusion at the oral arguments over whether the immigration officials decision here involved discretion or fact finding Here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Elena Kagan quizzing deputy solicitor general Austin raynor The factual issue at issue here is not that It's what was his intent when he checked the box Correct Did he But he's asked questions about what his intent was right And that your credibility comes into that right In terms of assessing the answer to this historical question the immigration judge did consider his credibility on the stand I mean the fact that he's later asked questions and his credibility is an issue doesn't make the underlying factual issue less factual I agree justice Kagan And nobody is suggesting that what are you agreeing to I mean I don't understand is it an exercise You think no discretion is involved in rejuvenating credibility My guest is Leon fresco a partner at Holland knight Leon Patel claims he checked that U.S. citizen box by mistake because he didn't need to be a U.S. citizen to get a driver's license under Georgia law What's interesting is he was trying to remedy his father for being undocumented through a green card application that would come by virtue of his family having a petition for a green card for him because he had U.S. citizen children And during a time where he actually had no legal reason to check a box on a Georgia state driver's license but said he was the U.S. citizen he accidentally goes to heaven proceed to check a box saying he's a U.S. citizen He did not need to say yes because he had a pending ring card application at the time which was sufficient basis in and of itself to give him a listen And so the government raises this as a reason to deny his green card application Then the government puts them in removal proceeding and he then tried to renew this argument saying hey I should have a green card The sort of tragic case of just checking this one box by mistake has certainly the four defending justice of body checked by mistake Now leave to him never being able to get a green card Tell us about justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion So what the Supreme Court found is that even though the U.S. government meaning the Biden administration and the applicants themselves were on the same page saying there is this authority to review They agreed with a decision from the 11th circuit which is that no no decision even if their decisions about facts that are part of this discretionary green card process can be reviewed So this is actually a significant limitation in the future on judicial review in the green card application context The basically make the product almost any decision that is being made even if it's completely wrong so if the government says you are a polygamist and you say what are you talking about Where are there two marriage certificates that show I'm a polygamist You could not actually get that reviewed in the Supreme Court or in any other federal court because now none of that's going to be reviewable under the logic that the green card application itself is discretionary So it doesn't matter None of the underlying factual determination can be reviewed So to clarify Leon these green card decisions are being made by immigration judges who are Justice Department lawyers And under this ruling a federal judge can't review that green card decision So in essence one immigration official is the be all and end all in these cases Correct That's part of a green card application That's correct Meaning that if anybody is thinking of decision as part of a green card application not just as to the discretionary decision at the end give it or not based on discretion but also on any of the facts Are you a polygamist Are you at a legal gambler Are you a drug dealer Are you any of these things You will have no opportunity to go in and review any of those 5 even if they're completely wrong because the Supreme Court has said well because the larger determination is discretionary that covers everything even the factual determination Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the liberals and he wrote the dissent saying today the court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error one that will result in an individual's removal from this country and nothing can be done about it Correct It is a dramatic expansion of this non reviewability doctorate Over the last 30 years the core time sort of expanded in every way shape and form to come to the reviewability in these immigration cases And this is sort of a big what I would call empire strike back moment in which really there is a dramatic curtailment of judicial review here and frankly in the context where it's probably most likely needed These mistakes get made all the time and now if there's no judicial review one there's no error correction that's available which is a problem in and of itself It's a huge problem But number two then more errors are likely to be made when people know that there's no error correction This is one of the factors of judicial review that people underrate is that if people know that their decision will be reviewed they're much more likely to make the correct decision in the first place And so from that standpoint this is quite a dramatic change for people going through the immigration system And justice Gorsuch has sided with the liberals in another immigration case recently Well I think this is an interesting trend So justice Gorsuch has actually now in two cases one is called Nick Chavez and wanted this case saying that he is going to hold the government to a very strict standard on deportation cases because deportation is such a drastic penalty that's being given to immigrants He wants the government to follow every detail perfectly and he wants there to be judicial review Miss Chavez that was the case about whether the government has to by law give you the time and date of your hearing There he ruled yet You have to give the exact notice the date.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Could make the difference between someone staying in the country or being deported a sharply divided Supreme Court rule that federal courts can't review factual decisions made by immigration officials even if there are mistakes Patel wanted to appeal a deportation order that was based on his checking a box incorrectly indicating he was a U.S. citizen when renewing his Georgia driver's license The case centers on an immigration law that prevents federal courts from reviewing decisions made at the discretion of immigration officials So there are many questions at oral arguments over whether the decision here involved discretion or fact finding Here are chief justice John Roberts and jousts Elena Kagan quizzing deputy solicitor general Austin raynor The factual issue at issue here is not that It's what was his intent when he checked the box Correct Did he But he's asked questions about what his intent was right And that your credibility comes into that right In terms of assessing the answer to this historical question the immigration judge did consider his credibility on the stand But he's always he's asked questions about a lot of factual issues right That doesn't make them any less factual You know did you check the box with a pen or a pencil or I mean the fact that he's later asked questions in his credibility is an issue doesn't make the underlying factual issue less factual I agree justice Kagan And nobody is suggesting that what are you agreeing to I mean I don't understand is it an exercise You think no discretion is involved in examining credibility which is a predicate determination in determining what you think the historical fact is right My guest is Leon fresco a partner at Holland knight Patel has been in the U.S. for 30 years Albert illegally and he faces deportation because he checked the wrong box on a driver's license application Tell us what happened to him Well what's interesting is he was trying to remedy his silence of being undocumented through a green card application that would come by virtue of his family having a petition for a green card for him because he had U.S. citizen children And what ended up happening as part of that application is that during this green card process during a time where he actually had no legal reason to check a box on a Georgia state driver's license But said he was the U.S. citizen he accidentally goes ahead and proceeds to check a box saying he's a U.S. citizen And so when the government raises this as a reason to deny his green card application it leads to a denial And then the government puts them in removal proceeding and he then tries to renew this argument saying hey I should have a green card and the judge actually says the reason I'm going to rule against you is you needed to say yes for the citizenship question to get a license which was not true He did not need to say yes to because he had had a pending ring card application of the vine which was sufficient basis in and of itself to give him a laser And so it led credence to his explanation but he checked the citizenship box by mistake and certainly the board descending justice of body checked by mistake And the sort of tragic case of just checking this one box by mistake now leads to him never being able to get a green card Just to say Amy Coney Barrett wrote the decision for a 5 to four divided court Tell us about her reasoning So the decision ultimately comes down to one question which is the statute that talks about what courts authorities are to review decisions on denials of discretionary relief within the context of a green card application What does it mean Does it mean that every aspect of the green card application is not reviewable because in the end the green card is a discretionary decision Or does it mean that just the discretionary decisions of the green card application are not reviewable And what the Supreme Court found that a 5 to four decision by justice Amy Coney Barrett is that even though the U.S. government meaning the Biden administration and the applicants themselves were on the same page saying there is this authority to review They agreed with a decision from the 11th circuit which was the only court that ruled the same way that the Supreme Court ended up ruling which is that no No decisions even if their decisions about facts that are part of this discretionary green card process can be reviewed So this is actually a significant limitation in the future on judicial review in the green card application context The basically make that for that almost any decision that is being made even if it's completely wrong so if the government says you are a polygamist and you say what are you talking about Where are there two marriage certificates that show I'm a polygamist you could not actually get that reviewed in the Supreme Court or in any other federal court in that manner because now none of that's going to be reviewable under the logic that the green card application itself is discretionary So it doesn't matter None of the underlying factual determination can be reviewed Thumbing up next on the Bloomberg law show I'll continue this conversation with Leon fresco of Holland and knight and we'll talk about justice Gorsuch's descent where he sided with the three liberals I'm June Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg So as you graduate and head out into the world there's only one thing that you need to know Hi this is Jamie from progressive.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Of Columbia law school about a divided Supreme Court striking down federal restrictions on the repayment of candidate loans to their campaign This was a 6 to three decision along ideological lines and justice Elena Kagan wrote a blistering dissent saying decision brings further disrepute to the country's political system and the donors know as they paid him so he will pay them Tell us a little about her descent Well she basically says that the special corruption potential for donations given is really these two elements donations given after the election is over when the donor knows who the winner is And that's going to be used to repay a loan made by the candidate So it's going basically directly back to the candidate She says that the special corruption potential there is self evident that it's obvious that there's a real problem here And then she actually goes and finds examples and they basically news accounts as instances in states in the past hasn't happened federally because the law is prohibited until now Instances in the past where you had particularly sleazy situations of donors giving money to a candidate's campaign after the election And then basically getting some kind of reward from that candidate a governor who's able to steer certain contracts in certain directions Just she basically says that the potential for growth in gear is obvious that there's evidence to support it And she also returns to the theme she's used in the past which is trying to figure out whether something really does present a corruption danger You should defer to Congress You should defer to the politicians They have a better sense of whether something is likely to breed a corruption problem than the court which is removed from the political sphere And so again she has made these arguments in the past that the Congress is a better judge of what creates a corruption danger And that the court is basically missing this And it's willingness to strike down restrictions that serve interest in public confidence in government Is campaign finance an issue that always divides the liberals and the conservatives and if so why It's certainly been true for about the last almost 20 years Further in the past I think it was more complicated And you did have some judges some of the Republican appointees in the past famously justice O'Connor who's been an elected official I think she was the last member of the Supreme Court I would actually get an elected official sharing some of the concerns that support campaign finance regulation And you've had some liberals in the past worried about the potential for limiting the ability of nonprofits and independent groups to campaign But it really has solidified in the last 20 years along a conservative liberal divide The conservatives are concerned that any kind of government regulation here will interfere with the free movement of the political process And the liberals see that by giving a total green light to money that striking down campaign finance laws kind of has the potential to corrupt the political process Ted Cruz engineered this legal dispute and the Biden administration also argued that he lacked legal standing to challenge the provision If the court had wanted to could they have taken an off ramp here and just said he doesn't have standing here Yeah the argument was that he basically gave himself just loan just enough money to his campaign to make this a real dispute Remember I said that the cap on the amount of money that could be refunded in post election contributions was $250,000 Well he loaned his campaign 260,000 They repaid in the two 50 So it was really about the remaining ten So it really did look as though it had been engineered to generate a case rather than be the source of any real problem So that was that was argued And the court rejected an interestingly actually justice Kagan and her descent didn't really go there I think she was willing to defend the statute on the merits rather than just say that there was no standing But also another even more obscure question in the case which is where the real Britain cruise came from the statute or from some implementing regs of the federal election commission including which had put in a time deadline for the repayment of the loan And which is not actually the statute the cruise needed to challenge the statute to get what's called a special three judge court and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court rather than go through the normal district court Court of Appeals Supreme Court process which he wouldn't have had it He was only challenging a regulation So there were some kind of technical issues in the case But in the end I think the descent really just went with the substance and the majority also spent the real focus of the majority on the substance As you mentioned this adds to a line of Supreme Court cases striking down campaign finance restrictions The chief even said this case was a logical progression in a series of cases Tell us about some of them Tell us about some of the ways the Supreme Court has cut back on campaign finance restrictions Well what's interesting a number of things but a couple of them is the way the court has in the Buckley decision which is now almost 50 years old 45 years old The quarter was sharp line between expenditure restrictions and contribution restrictions a consistently struck down expenditure restrictions except for the one that's dealing with corporations which lasted until citizens of the united ten years ago And consistently upheld restrictions on contributions What's been happening now is they've now beginning to strike down some contribution restrictions as essentially unnecessary So this decision invalidated a contribution restriction effectively restricting the use of donated contributions to repay alone Has nothing to do with spending A few years ago the court struck down a rule that had been in place really since the since Buckley since the original federal campaign from men's law which eliminated the amount of money a donor could give in total to all candidates So federal law restricts the amount of money a donor can give to one candidate on the individual restriction but there was also an aggregate cap on the amount of money wealthy donors can give to all candidates That cap had been raised substantially in the McCain feingold law and has been adjusted for inflation But the court in this case which is called mccutcheon which is now about 6 years ago so there was no justification for that that the only justification was the potential for corruption of individual officials and the fact that a wealthy individual could give to a hundred officials so long as those donations are under the wood is now the $2900 cap There's no danger of corruption And then in another case involving a public funding law that Arizona adopted a law that basically allowed us to state that authorized at the state to give money to candidates If candidate three is a certain amount of money and private donations the state will give them public funds as a way of reducing the need to raise campaign contributions and maybe reducing the dependence on campaign contributions The state also said that if a publicly funded candidate was facing a candidate who chose not to take public funds and as a result was able to raise more private money or as being the publicly funded candidate was also being hit hard by independent spending the state would give that publicly funded candidate additional money This didn't restrict any contributions to or expenditures by the other candidates But it basically said that we're going to an effect help maintain a fair fight for people who take public funding Of course that also has to go because that operated as a way to discourage spending by cannabis not taking public funding So in some ways what you're seeing is that there are expanding the notion of what constitutes a limit to address something which in that case wasn't a limit at all It was a support for the speech of publicly funded candidates But the core treated that as a limit on the privately funded candidates And I'll give you one last one Which was part of the McCain feingold law with something similar which said we'd have these campaign contribution restrictions But could that loss of it if a candidate is faced with an opponent who is self funding to an unlimited amount to a very high level and remember this Supreme Court in Buckley said that you can not limit how much money can they can spend on his own campaign Congress in 2002 best law basically saying that we're going to raise the contribution restrictions the restrictions on.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Supreme Court blocked the centerpiece of president Joe Biden's effort to get more people vaccinated against COVID-19 rejecting a rule that would require 80 million workers to get shots or periodic tests The outcome was no surprise after the oral arguments were the liberal jaws stressed the emergency the country is facing and the conservative justices stressed federal agency overreach Here are chief justice John Roberts and Joss Elena Kagan It's an extraordinary use of emergency power occurring in an extraordinary circumstance A certain sense that this country has never faced before As more and more mandates more and more agencies come into place it's a little hard to accept the idea that this is particularized to this thing that it's a regulation And it's a CMS regulation that it's a federal contract regulation It seems to me that it's the government is trying to work across the waterfront and it's just going agency by agency The stakes were apparent and some of the justices seemed a bit testy during the three and a half hours of arguments Here are justices Stephen breyer and Samuel Alito And so I repeat my question To me it's unbelievable but I want to hear what you say How can it be in the public interest which is a requirement How can it be a balance of harms in this case Assuming the arguments aren't off the wall on the government's side and I'm believe me they're not Okay That's what I want to hear the answer to Making that point I tried to make it as clear as I could I'm not making that point I'm not making that point I'm not making that point There is a risk Joining me is Robert field Professor of law health management and policy at drexel university So Robert why did the 6th conservatives block osha's vaccine mandate The conservative justices felt that osha had exceeded its authority that its empowered to control health and safety in the workplace not general health and safety concerns for the entire population and they thought that this was really a general population health concern not a limited occupational health concern and therefore osha didn't have the legal authority to impose the mandate So the liberals dissented what was their reasoning This is very much affect the workplace and the fact that it also affects people outside of the workplace doesn't mean it affects workers any less that COVID is a risk that's a particular problem if you're in an office or an assembly line or another workplace setting where you're close to other people And so the fact that you could be infectious outside of the workplace doesn't make it any less of a workload concern In their dissent where the liberals being a little bit snarky when they said that the majority was lacking any knowledge of how to safeguard workplaces and insulated from responsibility for any damage it causes I would call that a little bit snarky or sarcastic yes Having listened to the argument last Friday I felt that they were particularly acrimonious So it's not that surprising that the descent would be that strident Was this about the 6 conservatives being strict textualists or was it about the 6 conservatives trying to reign in federal agency power I think that it's hard it is suspicion of federal power And this is a conflict that goes back to the origins of our republic the conflict between states and centralized federal authority and between government action and individual liberty and flexibility And we have seen conservatives express skepticism over federal authority for decades It reached a head during the Reagan administration And I think that antagonism to federal regulation has basically been part of our political structure since Reagan certainly It's been at the forefront And the Biden administration knew what it was getting into knew that this might be the result I would assume so they had to know that it would be challenged because it seems like everything they do gets challenged And they had to know that with this Supreme Court there'd be difficult road to convince the conservatives that federal authorities should extend this far My guess is that they felt that perhaps Kavanaugh and Barrett enter Roberts as well would be receptive to their argument and that would be enough this way the court But obviously it wasn't The liberals managed to cobble together a majority to allow a second administration rule that would require shots for workers in nursing homes and other facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to go forward That was on a 5 to four vote with the chief justice and justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberals Why was that vote different It's a more limited mandate for one It just applies to healthcare facilities not to 80% of the workforce And I think the statutory authority is clearer The federal government since the start of Medicare and Medicaid has been issuing standards for the facilities that receive its money And those standards have become more complex over the years So it's well established that Congress wants the facilities that receive federal money to meet some kind of threshold for keeping patients healthy They certainly aren't funding Medicare and Medicaid so the facilities can be killing patients They want the facilities to make patients as healthy as possible So with that track record with that president in terms of government action there's a stronger statutory footing for allowing CMS to go forward So were you surprised then that four conservatives still dissented even in that case Yeah I was surprised I thought Barrett at least would vote to support the healthcare mandate and perhaps Gorsuch I'm not surprised that Alito and Thomas did But I thought given the clearer statutory authority to ensure the health and safety of people who work in government finance facilities and the patients who receive care their coupled with the emergency nature of the COVID pandemic.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"You see the value in worldwide market news the push for a global minimum corporate tax rate is still alive and well and you want it first The Labor Department has sent an emergency regulation to The White House So do we Bond yields around the world are tumbling Bloomberg daybreak With Karen Moscow and Nathan Hager Straight ahead religious local headlines plus a check of sports On Bloomberg radio the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg radio dot com The Supreme Court is considering the Biden administration's vaccination mandate on large employers During oral arguments justice Elena Kagan said mandates are absolutely necessary during a deadly public health crisis This is a pandemic in which nearly a million people have died It is by far the greatest public health danger that this country has faced in the last century Attorney Scott Keller argued the government mandate is too broad and that scores of workers would choose to quit COVID-19 hospitalizations are expected to hit a record high because of the acron variant The U.S. reported over 650,000 new COVID cases on Thursday COVID hospitalizations are approaching the record of 132,000 set last January The mega millions jackpot is getting bigger lottery officials say there were no tickets sold with all 6 numbers in last night's drawing That means Tuesday's jackpot will be worth $300 million That's the latest I'm Julie Ryan And I'm Susanna Palmer in the Bloomberg newsroom expectations for the Federal Reserve to begin raising interest rates in March which wasn't on the table weeks ago Are soaring in the wake of a slide and the U.S. unemployment rate as reported yesterday Bill Dudley's former Federal Reserve bank of New York president and a Bloomberg opinion columnist It's probably going to start at the march affluent simi which is much sooner than we thought say a year ago But I don't think the market has yet to view that defense going to be really aggressive Just three weeks ago almost all forecasters had predicted the fed would wait at least until the second quarter before raising rates A criminal case accusing former New York governor Andrew Cuomo of groping women in the executive mansion more than a year ago has been dismissed by a judge at the request of a local district attorney Bloomberg's truly pellet has more Judge Holly trexler in Albany granted a joint motion by Cuomo and Albany district attorney David soars to dismiss the case following a brief hearing held virtually and attended by Cuomo The dismissal was expected after soars announced last week that the claim against Cuomo was credible but could not be proven in court Charlie pellet Bloomberg radio After months of anticipation New York online sports betting has finally launched and is now live throughout the Empire State As of 9 a.m. draft king's FanDuel Caesars and rush street interactive all went live The New York gaming commission approved the four operators earlier in the week four launch Some Google employees vented frustrations on an internal form Friday when they realized that they didn't receive a deposit in their bank accounts on the first pay day of the year Instead we're hearing the affected workers saw their full paychecks and to their 401k retirement accounts Global news 24 hours a day on air and on Bloomberg quick take powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries I am Susanna Palmer This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg opinion on Bloomberg radio bring you news comments and insights from Bloomberg opinions worldwide team of editors and columnists I'm June grosso Coming up on the show a wild year in autos and a look back on PR blunders But first Eric Adams had a simple message for New Yorkers as he was sworn in as the city's 110th mayor That is why the theme of my first 100 days is G SD get stuff done Some experts have likened Adams to former New York City mayor David dinkins but Bloomberg opinion columnist Robert George says his style may be more reminiscent of the man dinkins defeated How much is Eric Adams like the man that he's being compared to David dinkins or is he more like a Koch Officially you can say there's a comparison because atoms is a second black mayor But in terms of his policies and how he wants to lead the city I think he's much more like Ed khat who famously referred to himself as a liberal with sanity He seems to be setting a pretty strong line here as far as what he's going to do for example he's taking on the city council He basically kind of picked a fight with the city council just to get a couple of weeks ago on the issue of solitary confinement at Rikers Island The council of many of whom are sort of energized progressive clearly want to end solitary confinement circumstances because admittedly they have been some abuses in recent years But he makes a point coming from a perspective of law enforcement And so he says that there's somebody who's in prison for doing violence And then they commit further violence on not just their fellow inmate but also corrections officers and so forth He's going to take that spirit And he's going to be put to impose correctional segregation I think is a term he uses And he's going to remove them from the population because they are clearly a continuing danger And he's very very strong about that And he is pushing back against the council I also think looking at the phrase Law & Order in a bigger picture his commitment to continuing what the outgoing mayor Bill de Blasio said about making sure all of the public school are open for in person instruction instead of remote learning Adam sees that as an example of order as well because parents need a certain kind of understanding and a commitment and a stability that the schools are going to be open So their work wise they're not going to be continue to be chaotic So he said this I wore a bulletproof vest for 22 years and protected the people of this city When you do that then you have the right to question me That seems very dismissive And does that mean that he thinks that no one has the right to question him about Law & Order issues I don't think though And if I was advised to him I would recommend he'd be more felicitous in his language But that particular statement was in the middle of a larger statement where he was talking about the importance of public safety and not just in the narrow context of crime in the streets and so forth He was trying to make the point that having been in law enforcement he has a good understanding and arguably a slightly more nuanced understanding on these issues than the city council members And I think it was also an interesting political insight that he had in that he was responding to a stunt that politicians of all backgrounds doesn't matter left right green Republican Democrat whatever The idea of putting out a statement and an open letter to the public and releasing it and making it look like you're actually kind of getting something done where he says look if you're really serious about this if you want to try and figure out a way to address the solitary confinement issue while recognizing that violence within the prison system is something that still has to be addressed come and talk to me face to face and we'll try and figure out something that is going to work rather than putting out these statements which are more PR than actual theory of conversation At the beginning of his tenure is he trying to set himself up with the city council so that he won't get interference I wouldn't put it that way I think he is certainly drawing a line with the city council And I think he is in a sense spending kind of a note and kind of a wink to the broader public Basically letting them know that on the strict issue of public safety which was arguably the issue that pushed him across the finish line in a rather contested mayoral primary He is telling the public that this is where he stands and in a sense he's going to.
AP News Radio
Conservative High Court Upholds Arizona Voting Restrictions
"The Supreme Court is up holding voting restrictions in Arizona the vote was six to three the court reversed a decision by a federal appeals court that said the measures disproportionately affect black Hispanic and native American voters in violation of a part of the landmark voting rights act justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority Arizona's interest in the integrity of elections justified the measures and the changes don't affect minority voters enough to prove a violation of law in a scathing dissent justice Elena Kagan wrote the court has re written in order to weaken a statute that stands as a monument to America's greatness this will set off new calls by Democrats to pass federal voting rights legislation A. Donahue Washington
AP News Radio
Supreme Court Rules Against Immigrants With Temporary Status
"The Supreme Court says thousands of immigrants living in the U. S. for humanitarian reasons cannot apply to become permanent residents a unanimous High Court says federal immigration law bans people who entered the country illegally and now have what's called temporary protected status from seeking green cards the case hinged on whether those people were actually admitted to the U. S. under immigration law justice Elena Kagan says they were not writing for the court in a case that pitted the Biden ministration against immigrant groups who argued many of the people in question have lived in the U. S. for years and put down roots the house has passed a bill making it possible for TPS recipients to become permanent residents but the Senate prospects are unclear Sager make ani Washington
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Just come back tomorrow but about papa prices and participation a very cannot be combined with any other offer Combo meal. This'll is Bloomberg Law with Joon Russell from Bloomberg Radio. In a 6 to 3 decision with an unusual alignment of justice is the Supreme Court handed a victory toe long time illegal immigrants this week with a ruling that turned on a single word. The smallest word in the English language of that, What does the word a mean in the term a notice to appear? Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion and had telegraphed in Orel arguments that it means one notice I would have thought. Government might have taken the hint from an eight justice majority Emperor. The notice of appeal means but it seems to me e Let me ask you this. What if what if I had a law clerk? I said in my Mannion, my law clerk manual. I wanna bench memorandum analyzing the facts, the law and your proposed disposition. And instead of providing that my law card provided three separate memos, each killing various views of the fax for more on the law, and then I don't know a couple on proposed disposition, so that be a bench memorandum. The answer Justice Gorsuch was looking for was no. Those nine separate memos would not be a bench memorandum. Joining me is Leon Fresco apartment Holland and Knight and the former head of the Office of Immigration Litigation at the Justice Department. Leon tell us how the notice to appear figures into the process for deportation proceedings. Whenever the government wants to play someone into removal proceedings, it begin by giving them a piece of paper and that piece of paper is called the notice to appear. Perform that looks the same everything on time. You can Google it and see it online and that notice to appear is supposed to have a date and time and location and there's actually little black from before wearing, you fill out the date and time and location of the hearing. So in this case, the notice like in honestly, hundreds of thousands of other cases. Did not have that date and time and location where to appear at the immigration court hearing because what often happens in these cases When the government apprehend someone, especially in the southern border. It doesn't have time, the big around where the hearing is going to be and what they didn't find it to be at No, it's just places to be announced. He'd be a on the notice to appear, and then you're supposed to get some notice later. That tells you Okay, you moved to Los Angeles, where you moved to New York. Year if when you're hearing is gonna be And so That's what's been usually happening, but that practice was challenged in the state. So in this case, ah, good Stone is Chavez, a Guatemalan immigrant who came to the U. S illegally in 2005 received his first notice to appear at a deportation hearing eight years later explained why the timing is so important here. In order to be eligible for cancelation of removal. You have to be someone who's been in the United States for 10 years before you were placed into removal proceeding. And during the 10 years, you have to have basically had a qualifying relative. But now is the reason why your removal should be canceled for you given birth to a U. S citizen or you married a U. S citizen and in those situations if you can prove that your removal will cause and scream and unusual hardship. You could get this relief, constant relation of removal. And so the question in this case is for someone who got a notice that didn't tell them what's the date and time of the hearing one Could that notice, then parts of the clock, so the seat meaning you were properly placed in removal proceedings before you've other families that you lived in the United States for 10 years, and what the court ruled gives yet direct question is no. The only way to stop the clock is to serve that documents the notice to appear. In the proper way filling and all the blend with the date and time and location of the hearing and the focus and the decision was on the article A in the phrase a notice to appear. Correct, meaning the question Woz in this case did the 10 year period stop. The first time you were given any notice, even if it wasn't a complete notice, or did it need to be a complete notice to appear with everything that's required in the notice to appear and what justice Gorsuch said, is because it said, a quote notice to appear that means has to be in one document. One notice so dear That has all of the item and on Lee, If you get that document with everything in it that is required by law. Have you been properly placed into removal? Proceeding such that at that moment we stopped counting whether you've been in the U. S for 10 years or not. Let's talk about the lineup, Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. The majority also included Justices Clarence Thomas, Steven Brier, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Cockney. Barrett. The descent was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. How do you account for those alliances? I think if you're a textual live, there's no way you could have ruled against what the ruling was. In this case, it literally says a notice to appear, and it says that the statue with the notice to appear have signs. The problem is, if you're sort of a practical policy first that you might say, well by Lord, this pointy headed sort of conclusion is going to drive us to a point where what is the government supposed to do? There's no way it can know when the hearing is going to be when it first after him, people, and so this is the practical and so we can't answer for love in a way that are not practicable. You implored by. That's not what the Congress intended. The Congress intended that you get a notice to appear. So what does it tell you? That textual ism was used to justify both the majority and the descent? Architectural list on both sides of these arguments, and no matter what he throws our governing principle you use you'll always be able to get to a different outcome. But at the end of the day, the reason you have the amount of agent of justice is that you have in this case is because you have both the practical and the fairness are human and the literal interpretation of the fact that argument birds into the same result, which is the compassionate results of this case. And that's rarely the case. But when that happened, that's why you get a fix every ruling here. So what happened to the Guatemalan immigrant in this case now? But now this person can actually reopened their proceeding and try to make the argument that their deportation would harm a U. S. Citizen child because it would lead to extreme and unusual hardship. The question will be. Will they be early enough in the CAF to be able to get one of the 4000? Green cards available each year. They have to wait several years. Or will they be able to get a green card from their child? Eventually what the child turns 21 so long as the court and basically the Biden administration is willing to hold the proceedings in the bay in until the child turns 21 or even has been the Strait of really closed the proceeding. But you can imagine the Biden administration doing in many cases moving forward. Thanks, Leon. That's Leon fresco of Holland and Knight Coming up next, the justices will confront the confrontation clause. This is Bloomberg. The following is a message. So let's say you're into yoga or Pallotti's. Or maybe you dabble in gymnastics.
Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network
Supreme Court says California cannot restrict religious household gatherings
"The supreme court rules in favor of religious worship. I'm ham who sell fox news. The high court tells california it can't impose cova contain restrictions on home based religious gatherings. The state had indoor social gatherings to no more than three households but the majority on the court said the state was treating secular activities like grocery shopping more favorably than at home religious meetings. Liberal justice elena kagan wrote the majority on. The court was hurting the state's ability to address a public health. Emergency fox's gel nato. The court's ruling is essentially moot though because california plans to loosen restrictions on. Indoor gatherings on april
Techmeme Ride Home
Google Ultimately Prevails Over Oracle in Java API Case
"The. Us supreme court has ruled in google's favor in that big. Copyright dispute with oracle over the use of java api is basically with a six two two vote the justices overturn what had been a big oracle lawsuit victory coating cnbc. The case concerned about twelve thousand lines of code that google us to build android that were copied from the java. Application programming interface developed by sun microsystems which oracle acquired in two thousand. Ten oracle sued google over the use of its code and one. Its case twice before the specialized. Us court of appeals for the federal circuit the supreme court reversed. the federal. circuit's decision justice steven brier. Who wrote the majority opinion. In the case reason that google's use of the code was protected under the copyright doctrine of fair use quote. We reached the conclusion that in this case where a user interface taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program google's copying of the sun java. api was a fair use of that material. As a matter of law brier wrote brier was joined by chief. Justice john roberts and justices sonia yar elena kagan neal gorsuch and brett cavenaugh justices clarence thomas and alito descended and quote so this is huge huge news in terms of software and coding law basically. Api's to some degree are now fair. Use and therefore not copyright -able
Bloomberg Radio New York
"elena kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"You know he's doing what doing way love being outdoors. Was riding a snow mobile with a friend when they were hit by the Avalanche. I'm Brian should You're listening to Bloomberg Law With Jeweled Russell from Bloomberg Radio. I've been talking to Professor Rick Karr. Net of Notre Dame all school about a divided Supreme Court ordering California to let indoor worship services resume and a group of suing churches in a 6 to 3 decision, the court rule for religious rites and ordered California to allow indoor church services to resume at a group of churches who were suing. Easing restrictions that state officials said were necessary to stem the spread of the Corona virus. Under restrictions imposed in July by Governor Gavin Newsom, California barred indoor worship services as well as indoor dining, movie screenings and other gatherings in counties designated as Tier one because of Hiko Vin numbers. The order stopped short of abolishing the covert restrictions altogether, saying the state could impose a 25% capacity cap it church services, and the justices also allowed California to continue to ban singing and chanting at indoor services. The justices split four ways in the case on one end, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neal Gorsuch said they would have blocked all of the restrictions. On the other end. Justice Elena Kagan, Steven Brier in Sonia Sotomayor said they would have left all the restrictions in place. The court's order reinforces an earlier Supreme Court decision that blocks trick capacity limits in New York as violating constitutionally protected religious rites. This is Justice. Amy Cockney barrettes first separate opinions and she's been on the bench and it was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. So why did she write a separate opinion? Yeah, it's very technical point. Her view and just Cavanaugh agreed, was that they didn't have enough evidence. The record is wasn't developed enough to be able to conclude That the limits on singing that were being applied to religious gatherings were neutral that this is a basic requirement. Federal constitutional laws that religious exercise can't be singled out for worse treatment than comparable secular activities. And one of the arguments in this case was that well, you know, people are allowed to sing inside another context, you can thing in your house. And there was some question about whether in the entertainment industry and the recording industry that people were still being allowed to Being indoors. But Justus parents point We just We don't have enough evidence yet to be able to say that California's treating secular singing better than religious scenes. So she in Kavanaugh and then by extension, the three more liberal justices to Willing to leave in place the limits on indoor singing as part of these gatherings. Ah, lot of people are pointing to this opinion. And saying, Oh, Justice Bharat. Maybe she's not as conservative as we thought. She's not as conservative as Clarence Thomas, for example. Yeah, I've heard some of that. I guess I would just urge people to think critically about these labels and how they apply the cases involving fundamental rights. It's not obvious to me that it's conservative rather than the rule to want to protect religious exercise rights. And in the other point, we just be that the disagreement that justice spirit and just Cavanaugh had with just a score, such as opinion is not a particularly big one of all nine justices, including justice, Kegan. They all agree that religious exercise is important, and they all agree that government hand target religious activities for burdensome regulations. Disagreement really has to do with the amount of difference the court should give to government officials when government officials claim that regulations are necessary and the disagreement is just about which activities are really comparable to others in the church service, more like a concert, or is it more like going to home Depot? That kind of thing? These disagreements are their significant, but I don't believe they're dramatic ideological differences. They reflect, Maura. I think Just a difference of opinion about how to interpret the factual record. You know, I think when I see injustice Paris opinion is not an attack on what, Just of course, which is saying, But it's just coming to a different conclusion. A different inference about some disputed facts. And now what about Justice Roberts opinion? We'll take him to be pretty much on the same page as Justices Barrett and Cavanaugh that is Some of the California he goes out of his way to say yes, of course, it's true that deference to public Officials, especially when you're dealing with an emergency is important. And of course, it's true that you know, in in good judicial conservative style that judges shouldn't be in the business of thinking that they can second guess all policy decisions so he wants to do you want to make that very clear? But then he just he points to the kind of extreme out liar nature of California's reflection that That, you know, even in the the huge Los Angeles Catholic Cathedral, which could seat you know, thousands of people. You still can't have any in person worship? He just does. He doesn't think that the record reflects California's actually exercising. Epidemiology, Epidemiological, uh, judgment, but instead, it just kind of again doing a rubber stamp and taking the easy way out and imposing a blanket restriction. So that's why, um Hi. He does when he does. He wants to make a very clearly doesn't think judges can or should micromanage local governments, responses to diseases. Um But again, he's being down a marker that at some point, judicial scrutiny is crucial when you have regulations that appeared to be disregarding fundamental rights. Justice Elena Kagan wrote an opinion for the Liberals, and it was really impassioned and seemed to be critical of her colleagues or conservative colleagues. In a way she doesn't usually do. Justice. Kagan is a great writer has always and I do think it was a certain amount of passion and kind of urgency that comes through in her dissent. I don't think it crossed any lines in terms of not being respectful. I mean, I think she tends to always observe that line but basically hurt. Disagreement is not on the importance of religious exercise. You know, she opens her opinion by saying, Yeah, of course, you can't treat religious exercise worse than you treat comparable secular activities. But her two main themes are first we should beam or deferential to California state officials. And again. This is a disagreement with Gorsuch, who's saying looking yes, Some difference is important, but we're talking about fundamental rights. We don't just defer to the cops. When it comes to you know whether or not they have toe respect, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights. And so he wants to spend sister. We can't just defer to the government when it says that these regulations are necessary for the first disagreement is on the theme of difference. She thinks the course not being deferential enough, and she has several lines and paragraphs where she kind of challenges. You kind of poke the justices, but they're being activist and the second history would have to do with the comparison points. She thinks church services. Indoor religious gatherings are not comparable to things like going to the Home depot going shopping going to a grocery store, and so on. So she thinks the religious gatherings are not being treated worse than comparable secular gatherings. Whereas the justices who were in the majority did think that religious gatherings are being treated worse, in my own view, I don't think justice Kagan took enough account of justice Gorsuch is Point that California doesn't seem to have been very flexible that again. If you're worried about singing indoors, and it seems to be the bed is something to worry about. You can simply say no singing during religious gathering, or if you're worried about people like close proximity you can require distancing again. Just discourses concern was California kind of taken the easy way out. Just the blanket, No gatherings proposal and he doesn't want to defer to that. But Justice Kagan death. The case seems to be following the New York case last November, after Justice Bharat joined the court in which the court barred capacity limits on houses of worship. Ah, change of direction from prior cases on that issue and more expansive of religious rights. So do you see this case as being a step further? I don't think it's so much a step further from the Brooklyn case, But I do think that these covert restriction cases as a general matter have been fascinating because they do suggest I think that the court's free exercise doctrine is moving from where itwas, you know, 30 years ago in the famous Smith case. It does suggest, And this is relevant to the upcoming Gardocki adoption case. The Fulton case then that you've been following. It appears that you know, there's a majority of justices who are willing.
WIBC 93.1FM
"elena kagan" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM
"Freedom and Liberty and the state of California this week. Pretty interesting stuff. You're listening, of course to Saturday night on the circle on 93 WNBC producer Donnie on the board, and I'm your humble host Ethan Hatcher here to discuss current events. Okay, Supreme Court, telling California it can't cannot bar indoor church services because the corona virus pandemic, but it can For now, ban singing and chanting indoors as well as place capacity limits so because that mixed bag High court issued orders on Friday in two cases where churches sued over coronavirus restrictions in the state High Court said. For now, California can't ban indoor worship as it had in almost all the state due to the virus cases. Justice has said the cake the state can cap indoor services at 25% of the buildings capacity. Justice is also Declined to stop California from enforcing that day and put in place last summer on endorse, singing and chanting. Now I really like to understand how you can place a ban on the singing and chanting because that's an expression of worship. If you can't ban the assembly of worship, which is part of the free expression, then it's also seem to follow that you shouldn't be able to ban chanting as well. But Supreme Court apparently disagrees. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that California's determination that the maximum number of adherents who can safely a worship in most cavernous cathedral is zero appears not to reflect expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation for consideration of the interest that state I believe that would include chanting and singing as well. That is a fairly well known aspect of many religions puzzling now the final word wholesale band on worship, no capacity limits and chanting restrictions. Yes, the court's three liberal justices predictably dissented on the issue, saying they would have upheld California's restrictions. Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent for herself, but Justices Stephen Bryer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor Uh uh, said that the court's action risked worsening the pandemic. They said that the court was making a special exemption for worship services rather than treating them like other activities, where large groups of people come together in close proximity for extended periods of time. Don't think that this this ruling represents a special exemption in any way at all, Even if it did. The freedom of worship is one of those things that's covered in the First Amendment to the Constitution, So it's a fairly important fundamental right that has been baked into our freedoms that are to be expected in America, pandemic or otherwise, and certainly Well, we're almost a year into that. Now that's crazy. More than well. More than 10 months in individuals should be more than informed and allowed to make these decisions and determinations for themselves. Now bristling against a perceived threat to perfect the free press Reporters this week blew the whistle on White House attempts to field questions in advance. Of the daily press briefings. And this is a fascinating insight into the incestuous relationship between media and politicians because we've been beating the drum. For months on this show, you know what Dr Root was still part of the program. And, of course, you've heard it on other shows on Wi D. C as well be a chicks on the right, Tony Cats be it hammer knives. All are in nearly unanimous agreement that the media is a partisan apparatchik of the Democrat Party, and it's pretty obvious and it has been to anyone paying attention. But now The Daily Beast. Bowling lid off a story of writing that three people say the White House press team. Asked what question journalists are planning to ask during press briefings This should be concerning to advocates of a free press reporters have said that the Biden press office request you send questions ahead of re things undermines his promise to respect the free press. You don't say sending in questions ahead of time could give the appearance that reporters are cooperating with the administration. This report. Like I said it reaffirms what has been patently obvious to those of us who pay attention. Democrats and media have a mutually beneficial, incestuous relationship. They felt confident enough in their position to make this request. We're fortunate that at least a few reporters had enough of the spine to stand up and say no, but you can be sure that at least a few people are going to be willing to play ball. So we're just Finding out about it, One reporter told the Beast. While it's a relief to see briefings return, particularly with a commitment to factual information, the press can't really do its job in the briefing room. If the White House is picking and choosing questions they want that's not really a free press it all now sake seems to be incredibly inept at the position in which she finds herself because first of all, it seems she can't really answer many of the questions presented to you or you know, we'll have to circle back to these issues as she S so so famously says, But then she also feels the necessity evidently to field questions in advance. Picking the most beneficial ones to suit the agenda of the administration. This is not acceptable now s. Oh, yeah. And and, of course, journalist caught red handed. Uh And we're very fortunate that there wasn't least One advocate for a free press moving on last week on the show we talked about Dr Anthony Fauci is remarks that wearing two masks was Colin Sense. But now an ex Biden expert on coronavirus disagrees with that assessment of this is coming from Michael Foster home, and he's the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, and he served as a member of the biting transaction or Transition Cove in 19 advisory board..
Techmeme Ride Home
Computer Crime Law Scrutinized at Supreme Court
"Finally today there was an interesting tech related case that was argued before the. Us supreme court yesterday it involves a nineteen eighty-six computer crime law that has been used ever since to prosecute hackers and internet activist than the like people have been arguing strenuously that the law is outdated and indeed as justice gorsuch said in yesterday's court hearing the us government's interpretation of the law risks quote making a federal criminal of us all and quote. And yes if you're wondering this is indeed the so called. Aaron swartz law quoting politico. The supreme court on monday indicated serious reservations about the ambiguity and scope of the nation's only major cybercrime law hinting. It may narrow the law's applicability to avoid criminalising acts such as checking social media at work during arguments in a case involving a georgia police officer convicted of violating the nineteen eighty-six computer fraud and abuse act by accessing a license plate database. The justices pushed a justice department. Lawyer to explain how a ruling in the government's favour wouldn't open the door to prosecutions of innocuous behavior those could include browsing instagram on computer or performing public-spirited security research to test a system for vulnerabilities as the first see. Faa challenge to reach the high court. The van buren case generated amicus briefs from a wide range of technology privacy and cyber security experts. Most of them on van buren side a group of cybersecurity. Experts described the faa a sword hanging over the head of researchers who probe computers for weaknesses with the goal of helping their owners fix the flaws. The most controversial ever see faa case never reached a verdict. In two thousand eleven federal prosecutors indicted the prominent internet freedom activists aaron sorts on hacking charges for downloading millions of journal articles using a subscription provided by mit swertz. Then twenty four face thirty five years in prison. He by suicide in january twenty thirteen while awaiting trial. The justices sounded alarm. Monday about the broader reading of the cfe. A justice neal gorsuch suggested that the van buren case was the latest example of the government. Trying to broaden the scope of criminal laws incontestable ways several justices expressed uncertainty about the definitions of key terms in the law such as authorization and they spent a significant amount of time asking both lawyers about the meaning of the word so in one part of the statute quote. What is this statute talking about. When it speaks of information in the computer justice samuel alito asked finding in at one point. All information that somebody obtains on the web is in the computer in a sense. I have a feeling. That's not what congress was thinking about when adopted this law. I don't really understand the potential scope of the statute without having an idea about exactly what all those terms mean li added. The justices also sought more clarity about the consequences. That fisher argued would result from abroad. Reading of the faa alina. Ask fisher to explain how the would criminalize one of his example scenarios. Wait on dating website. Fisher responded that by receiving interested messages from potential romantic partners based on falsified. Wait the user would be obtaining information from a computer in violation of the websites terms of service and also thus these cf a similarly fisher told justice elena kagan checking instagram at work constituted obtaining words and pictures from ones instagram feed and if a company prohibited social media browsing on computers obtaining that information would also violate the cf a bike contravening the employers policy and quote
Mark and Melynda
Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling
"A lot for being with us on this day after Thanksgiving. It was right before Thanksgiving late Wednesday. When the U. S Supreme Court The majority said, even in a pandemic You can't put away the Constitution. Now. In New York governor Cuomo says that he issued these restrictions on places of worship. Based on science. And safety. And so this is a fascinating ruling. In many regards number one. It's a big plus for religious freedom. Number two. It was just this past summer. That the Supreme Court ruled basically the opposite. In a case and there's some other cases that are being considered. I believe some cases California, New Jersey, Louisiana, So this is all about the Supreme Court blocking New York's governor from enforcing 10 and 25 person occupancy limits On religious institutions. Courts, the restrictions would violate religious freedom. And are not neutral because they single out houses of worship or especially harsh treatment. Or said there's no evidence that the organizations that brought the lawsuit have contributed to the spread of cove in 19. And this was one of those 54 decisions. With Chief Justice John Roberts. Going along with Justices Stephen Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. And in their descent. Chief justice. Roberts said he saw no need to take this action because New York had revised the designations of the affected areas. Governor Cuomo essentially Said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did rule on it and also in the sending opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this unlike religious services, Bike repair shops and liquor stores generally don't feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more. She went on to say justices of this court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials. About the environments in which a contagious virus now infecting a million Americans each week. Spreads most easily. Those are the words and the dissenting opinion from Justice. Sonia Sotomayor, your Down the majority, and this may be the new power five and this is one of the key developments out of this ruling. A new power five on the Supreme Court. Barrett Gorsuch. Thomas Alito. And Cavanaugh. Three of whom, of course, were Appointed By President Donald Trump in the Majority opinion. Justice, Gorsuch said this, he noted that Governor Cuomo had designated among others, the hardware stores acupuncturists. Liquor stores and bicycle repair shops as essential businesses. That were not subject to the most strict limits. Like these places of worship work. Gorsuch said. We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well. When we do So it Zbig deal for the Supreme Court. It's a big deal for I mean, let's face it all those evangelicals that voted for President Trump. They've got to be doing a victory lap today, right? Maybe you are a swell 51283605 90. If you'd like to be a part of the program here, you give us a call or send us a text on K. O. B. J. It is because Amy Barrett just got on the court. Right, So it's really The first significant indication Of a rightward tilt to the court. And I mentioned this and may and July Supreme Court rejected challenges. Virus related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada. At that time, the Chief Justice John Roberts, Joined the courts Democratic appointees, which of course, then included Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And those rulings they stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic. So The New York Times, Right said. This is just One example of how profoundly President Trump Has transformed the Supreme Court. This New York Times P, says Justice Bharat Help the chief justice of body blow. Casting the decisive vote in a 5 to 4 ruling. On religious services in New York. And New York Times says this is most certainly a taste. Of things to come. About this 51283605 90 here on Caleb E. J. It is an interesting question, right? In the summer time. Even the Supreme Court said, Look You may not like it when these local officials are trying to close the church. But You're dealing with health and safety issue. And there are rights. Given to local officials in the event. Of health and safety issues. Well, not in this case, the governor there in New York, Andrew Cuomo. He criticized the Supreme Court. Or overturning their restrictions. He said It was Morrell Astrit Ivo of the Supreme Court than anything else. He called the ruling irrelevant. Said it would have any practical impact because restrictions Are not in place and had been dialed back well. You know, it's interesting that even in the Opinion. That was written by Sonia Sotomayor, right? When she was talking about The court plays a deadly game and second guessing the expert judgment of health official. Let's stop right there.
Post Reports
Why Mitch McConnell is unstoppable
"The reality is in the Senate right now, it takes just simple majority to advance any presidential nominee Paul Kane is the senior congressional correspondent for the post whether it is to some random commission overseeing the Great Lakes or the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and that has left the minority party with very few options. The reality is that there's not a whole they can do. and. What are some of these theories that we have heard of that Democrats could do or that people think the Democrats could do right now oh, there's this thought of if you impeached someone anyone bill bar or in the trump again and sent to that resolution across the capital that it would instantly stop all other action and forced them to hold an impeachment trial. You know I got an email from a reader asking about they could just deny unanimous consent blocking unanimous consent is something that blocks the action from taking place and basically would make the voting process go much more slowly. Yeah. But there are provisions. Already in line for how to deal with those things, you file something called a cloture motion. That's the that's the way you blocked a filibuster defeat filibuster and yes, it'll take three days to overcome that process but think of it this way if there really were away for this minority party to block this Supreme Court nominee then Mitch McConnell would have thought of it in the eight years that he served as minority leader and was considered the obstructionist in chief. He was considered the greatest structure in the history of the Senate blocking Brock Obama at every possible way if there were ways for digital block Supreme Court. Nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan from the minority position McConnell would have done it but he couldn't do it, and then I've heard these ideas that potentially if Democrats were to win control of the Senate in November, and if there were to be a Democratic president that there's this idea, you could pack the court afterward, you could just change the number of justices that there are on the Supreme Court and increase them. So you could have two more. Democrat appointed justices or you could have four more. Well, that is a the that is something that can legitimately be done in the legislative process. There was no. Foundation in the constitution that set the number of surpreme. Court justices at nine. It started with six justices the chief and five associate justices an grew over the years and you know to be sure you know the considered the greatest Democratic president of all Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried in the nineteen thirties to pack the court and very infamous way and eventually was shot down and the reality is if Democrats were to go through the couple year process of adding justices to spring court that would immediately be met in return with Republicans. Next time they have the power and you know we just would go back and forth by. In twenty years, we might have twenty one justices and also probably need support from actual democratic leadership, and this seems like something that Congressional leadership isn't that interested in something that Joe Biden has said that he straight up doesn't think should happen Yeah Biden had got a little bit cagey the other night when he was asked about it in a local interview I think it was in Wisconsin and he basically said that he didn't want to answer the question because of the answers the question. Then that's GonNa change the. Discussion and what Democrats are trying to do right now is to avoid these. These are processed fights. I know that there is a bigger bigger goal at hand here in terms of overall policy and how that policy is reviewed at the supreme. Court. But most of the public tunes this stuff out because they, they hear things about over Republicans are being hypocrites and well like eighty nine percent or more of the public says, yeah, they're all hypocrites no big deal and they really want to try and focus this fight politically. On, what the impact of trading in Ruth? Bader GINSBURG. The most iconic liberal justice of the last twenty five years for a very staunch conservative jurist like amy, Coney Barrett like that is the biggest ideological jump that the court would have seen since thurgood Marshall was replaced by Clarence Thomas They WanNa make this fight politically not about these seemingly random efforts to put more justices on the Supreme Court and they want this fight to be about the impact on the affordable care act on voting rights on clean air clean. Water
AP News Radio
US high court denies bid to restore Greens on Montana ballot
"Hi Mike Ross you're reporting the Supreme Court denies a Republican bankrolled effort that threatened to siphon votes from democratic candidates in Montana the U. S. Supreme Court has denied a bid by the Montana secretary of state to restore Green Party candidates to the November ballot Republican secretary of state Corey Stapleton filed a motion Monday to stop a state Supreme Court order that granted the request of more than five hundred sixty people to remove their names from ballot petitions justice Elena Kagan died Stapleton's motion the Republican Party bank rolled the one hundred thousand dollars signature gathering effort and violated finance laws by not reporting it the Montana Green Party did not support the effort hi Mike Rossio
Hammer and Nigel
Supreme Court temporarily blocks felons from voting in Florida
"The U. S. Supreme Court is allowing the lower court order to stand preventing convicted felons from voting in Florida. Fox's Jared Halpern Supreme Court justices there leaving in place an appeals court decision stop voter registration of former felons in Florida who cannot pay fines or fees. It's a setback for former felons with an upcoming primaries in the November 3rd presidential election Justice Sonia Sotomayor or dissented along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. Arguing the court's order prevents thousands of otherwise eligible voters from participating because they're poor. Florida has a July 20th voter registration deadline for primary elections scheduled for August.
Q
Supreme Court rules against 'faithless electors'
"Today. A unanimous decision on rogue electoral college delegates is NPR's Nina Totenberg reports the court without dissent. World states have the power to remove electoral college delegates who refuse to cast their votes for the popular vote winner in their states. In 2016 7 Electoral college delegates went rogue, casting their ballots for someone other than Hillary Clinton, the candidate. They were pledged to support in Colorado. The so called faithless electors were removed and replaced on the spot and in Washington state. They were fined. The delegates challenge the state laws in court, contending that under the constitution, they have discretion in casting their votes. But now the Supreme Court has unanimously disagreed. Justice Elena Kagan writing for the court. Declare that neither the text of the Constitution nor history is on the road. Delegates side Nina Totenberg
Noon Report with Rick Van Cise
U.S. Supreme Court lets states bar insanity defense
"Them states are being handed a win by the U. S. Supreme Court when it comes to the issue of insanity justice Elena Kagan wrote the ruling that addressed the case of a Kansas man who killed four people including his estranged wife James caller wanted to use an insanity defense but Kansas got rid of that option and Kagan said the court would decline to require that Kansas adopted insanity
Todd Schnitt
Democratic candidates go head-to-head on the Supreme Court
"I want to turn to the Supreme Court the balance on the court and the issues before the court right now president trump in just the last twenty four hours saying we've appointed one hundred ninety one federal judges to Supreme Court justices keeping his campaign promise to ship the court to the right with new Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh before it'll characters at the court climate change is working its way to the court and a major abortion cases on the docket this year but president Biden on the issue of abortion in twenty twelve you said president Obama's two Supreme Court pics of them there was no litmus test we pick people who an open mind did not come with an agenda and you said before we both believe that we should not apply Nero litmus tests to appointees to the Supreme Court but I also let me just let me just ask would you do it differently as president Mister vice president whether be a litmus test for say the rest of what I said I said that we are not not appoint anyone who did not have a view that on a new rate right suggested in the constitution that's not a specific test is a generic chest and only way the only reason women have the right to choose is because it's a term that there's underwriter rights coming from the ninth amendment in the constitution that's what I said I was I was part of the reason why Elena Kagan a work from beyond the Supreme Court I was part of the reason why Ruth trader Ginsberg is on the court I was part of the reason why certain wears on the court issued for me and hi to reside and I'm the reason why this right wasn't taking away a long time ago because I almost single handedly made sure the Robert Bork did not get on the court because he did not think there should be no right right on right for let me just straight Mister vice president I am aware of what you said is which is why I'm asking would you do it differently now would there be a litmus test on abortion yes there's a deal litmus test on abortion relates to of them fundamental value the constitution a woman does have a right to choose I would in fact if they ruled to be unconstitutional I will send to the United States con the Senate will pass I believe a bill that off that that that should be legislates Rovi way to Dodge adjusted by Casey it sure is a woman's right to do that and if you call that listens to us as a litmus test but what I was talking about the passer know which gets confused here is if there is no if you if you read the constitution very very narrowly and say there are no own enumerated rights of the judges say in the constitution doesn't exist you cannot have any of the things I care about anything I care about is a progressive members United States Congress at the time and as vice president as a member of
The Frame
Emmy Special: Julia Louis-Dreyfus
"Welcome to the frame emme special from KPCC in Los Angeles. I'm John Horn the host of the frame and I'm Lorraine Ali television critic for the La Times Save. We'll hear from a lot of nominees. It's about their work and their shows and we'll talk about. Emmys can tell us about the state of television right now. which is a really really interesting state? Yeah and one thing I want to talk about is he is late night. Talk shows I mean I know. We think that that's a place to go for humor and some jokes. I'm finding some of the best documentary reporting on television right now is happening on shows like John Oliver Samantha B so we'll cover that I am really looking forward to the limited series category this year because it is dumbass about stuff that has been on television talking about Chernobyl when they see us Fussy verdon escaping down more these are excellent shows and the limited series category used to be kind of like now. It's like that is the place that we're looking at it. I'm looking forward to see what happens with that but we're going to start with a comedy series and that Atas veep its lead actress could make some Emmy History Julia Louis and the emmy goes to even Julia Louis Dreyfuss. Let me try to annoy drivers now for most emmys one by performer and the same the same series peaches came back for its final season. There is another big final season it rhymes with game of thrones it is getting thrown and so on but before veep wrapped up its final season. I had a chance to speak with Julia Louis Dreyfuss. There's a lot of grief around the end of a series assuming the series has been a a good thing and a happy thing which in our case it has been and that has an incredible bitter sweetness to it that can really got you and it did. Let's talk about the final season running for President and she is asked a basic question of very early in the season which is why and other people are curious but here's a conversation. I bet she has with Gary who's played by Tony Hill because it is my God is was the game changer. I took bombed the glass ceiling. I shave my in the sink of the Old Boys Club for three years. He kept me chained to a radiator some basement in Cleveland. So as far as I'm concerned America owes me an eight year stay in the White House at this time. I want a war yeah. What is it like listening to that. It's gobs of fun. I think that's so well written so I was just sort of listening to the language you you know she's not a great candidate. That's not under state but I appreciate her her bitterness and her struggle when you are playing her. You'll have some way of saying okay. I know that this is a character and and I know that what she wants is not something that she's able to express but that's the actor plane her. I have to believe what it is. She wants here's how I would answer that. She's he's a very horrible human being and hideously behaved and really has no leadership skills whatsoever or no point view even other than her own narcissistic endeavor but when you player you have to come at it from well bill why and once you start to humanize that horrible nece you can find a way in to play it with a certain amount of well in a weird way. I say empathy and even though I'm not necessarily asking the viewer to be empathetic. I just want the viewer to laugh off but it just perhaps that keeps her from being hated by the audience right. What are the greater kinds of compliments. You can get from people who work in politics. I I hear time and time again. This is what it's really like in Washington and you know. I- winces I say that too but yeah that's that's what we hear. I had the great good fortune into meet Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan once and she told me that she got together with Justice Scalia. When veep was on on the air every week to discuss the past week's episode because there were both fans imagine that are can't? I know I would do anything thing to have those conversations. Let's hope somebody recorded them. I know maybe the FBI
Morning Edition
Muslim inmate executed after state denies request for iman present
"A man convicted of rape and murder was put to death last night in Alabama. The death row inmate was Muslim and his lawyers had appealed to the US supreme court to allow the prisoners imam to be by side during the lethal injection process. NPR's Matthew Schwartz says the high court rejected that contention that the state was violating his constitutional rights when it offered to allow a Christian chaplain to be in the execution chamber. Dominic gray was scheduled to be put to death Thursday night for the nine hundred ninety five rape and murder of a fifteen year old girl Ray, a Muslim wanted his imam by his side at the moment of death. But the prison warden rejected that request saying that will raise a mom could be in the witness room. It might compromise security to let them into the execution chamber a federal court on Wednesday said Alabama was likely violating the first amendment by preferring one religion over another. But I'm Thursday night by a vote of five to four. The supreme court said Ray could be executed the majority. Said Ray had waited too long to object in her dissent. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that raise religious rights might be violated at the moment. The state puts him to death that moment came hours later by lethal injection.
The Takeaway
Brett Kavanaugh hears first arguments as Supreme Court justice
"The supreme court is welcoming Brett Kavanagh for his first day on the bench. NPR's Carrie Johnson reports the high court heard arguments in two cases today chief Justice John Roberts says he wishes Brad Kavanagh along and happy career on this supreme court Kavanagh's already made his presence known. He asked more than ten questions during the oral arguments. He exchanged warm. Greetings with Justice Elena Kagan who wants hired him to teach at Harvard Law School in after about two hours. He shook kagins hand as he left the bench Kavanagh's wife, Ashley and his two daughters attended the morning arguments. So did retire Justice Anthony Kennedy whom cavenaugh replaced on the high court? Dozens of people protested outside the supreme court, citing sexual assault allegations cavenaugh has denied but
Rush Limbaugh
Brazil, Costa Rica and Mexico discussed on Rush Limbaugh
"The supreme court deals a setback today to public employee unions in a five four decision the court rules those unions cannot compel workers who don't join the union to pay them fees here's cbs's steve dorsey courts liberal justices worry about the consequences of the ruling justice elena kagan wrote quote public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support but this ruling only applies to public sector unions like those of government employees local organized labor groups are calling an afternoon news conference to respond to this ruling we'll bring you that when it happens here on wbz wb abc news time twelve ten new order overnight from a federal judge in california it demands the government reunite all migrant children under the age of five with their parents within fourteen days it's also applies to children's separated from their parents as those families either come to the border seeking asylum or illegally cross the ruling also gives the government thirty days to reunite all migrant children over the age of five cbs's david bag no has more on this from the mexican border preliminary injunction issued in the southern district of california by us district judge dana sabra which says the government is blocked from carrying out any future family separations the order also says parents cannot be deported before being reunited with their children under the present system judge sabra rights migrant children are not being accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property certainly that cannot satisfy the requirements of due process meantime a member of the kennedy family plans to take part in a hunger strike taking a stand against the trump administration's immigration policies ninetyyearold ethel kennedy says she's joining the fast which is running in total for twenty four days each person that takes part is asked to fast for twenty four hours and then make a donation to charity it's not clear which day that kennedy plans to fast wbz news time twelve twelve the story just coming into our newsroom joe jackson the patriarch of the jackson family has died spokesman for the family tells tmz he died last night in la at eighty nine years old jackson was the father of michael and janet jackson along with the other jackson brothers forming the jackson five again joe jackson dead at the age of eighty nine he had been battling terminal cancer over to sports now shocker today world cup play defending champions germany have been eliminated from play following a stunning defeat at the hands of south korea south koreans best in germany to nail sweden also beating mexico threes up later today switzerland faces costa rica serbia taking on brazil over to sports now with ben parker in the as hticket dot com sports studio during last night's game jackie bradley jr was hitting a buck eighty nine on the season now he's at a one ninety nine.