35 Burst results for "Gorsuch"

Putsch Back: Africas Latest Coup in Guinea

The Economist: The Intelligence

02:04 min | Last week

Putsch Back: Africas Latest Coup in Guinea

"Guinea has just been kicked out of egos. The economic community of west african states after military leaders staged a coup over the weekend. Speaking after an emergency eco summit burkina-faso's foreign minister alpha berry insisted that all those arrested during the coup be kept safe on exeter lengthy physical dependent alpha. Took on. now you be immediate to alpha conde. It took the like assam and that president alpha conde be released immediately. Soldiers had detained him after storming a government. Building in concrete guineas. Capital video showed the eighty three year. Old mr conde surrounded and looking stunned mama dida mboya. The head of guinea special forces and the apparent coup leader took to national television declaring the constitution and the government dissolved was about to do to let gorsuch show on monday. He said a government of national unity would be formed within weeks whether that will mean better governance for a country in desperate need of it is an open question as is just how long africa's renewed trend of such coups we'll continue cruiser was surprising to some degree but sitting to some and people watching guinea. This was not such a shock. Kenley salmon isn't africa correspondent for the economist that because these causes of becoming for awhile prison conde who's been ousted was elected but had changed the constitution to allow himself to run potentially for two more terms that was met with protests in the streets soldiers. Pretty forces responded to this violence. He'd been won the subsequent election at least according to official results but again was heavily disputed and there were protests. So there's been background sense of frustration. Which i think at the very least gave soldiers

Burkina Alpha Berry Guinea Alpha Conde Mr Conde Mama Dida Mboya Gorsuch Government Of National Unity Kenley Salmon Africa Conde
Supreme Court Rules Against NCAA in Benefits Case

Colorado's Morning News with April Zesbaugh and Marty Lenz

01:25 min | 3 months ago

Supreme Court Rules Against NCAA in Benefits Case

"Student athletes and their families celebrating a major ruling from the U. S. Supreme Court on Monday. In a unanimous vote, the court ruled the N C double a cannot ban or limit education related payments to players. But the court did not weigh in on whether athletes should get an outright salary, which is still a big debate right now, let's take a closer look at the ruling with ABC is Aaron Carter Ski Aaron. What does this ruling mean for college athletes overall and what constitutes quote unquote educational related payments? Well, there are things like paid internships, science equipment. It could be any kind of gear that they need. They want to play a musical instrument. They can get a free instrument and and it could mean all sorts of academic scholarships for for graduate degrees if they choose to pursue it, and the Supreme Court said The AH could not due to anti trust laws block those kinds of of benefits to student athletes. The delay worried about a slippery slope, saying those benefits could evolve into things that have nothing to do with education. But Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, said the Ah is still free to impose limits What Gorsuch called the No Lamborghini rule, and so the N C double. They can still police the kinds of benefits. That the players get but cannot block schools from offering them to student

U. S. Supreme Court Aaron Carter ABC Aaron Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch Gorsuch
Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against NCAA in Athlete Compensation Case

The Michael Berry Show

01:57 min | 3 months ago

Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against NCAA in Athlete Compensation Case

"Started the program today. Talking about the Landmark ruling by the supreme court in the ncwa Sports case it was actually brought by some student athletes who played college football current and former student athletes. The majority was written by gorsuch and the concurring and probably more inflammatory opinion from justice. Cavenaugh our supreme court expert professor josh blackman in south texas college of law is our guest professor. First of all did this ruling surprise. You know it didn't The argument by the ncaa is pretty extreme for more than one hundred years. They've been employing student athletes. they're paying them and they insist that no they're not actually employees. They are just athletes. Who happen to play a weapon. Go to class occasionally and it's always been a little tough to understand. They make billions of dollars off their licensing and tv deals and merchandising and the students get up guest So this was not a terribly surprising. Ruling could the nc double a. Have made a better argument. It sounded like you thought maybe their argument was not so strategic. I mean weren't they really trying to say. Hey when we win this when we want to shut everything down. Wasn't this an all or nothing. And isn't that what they're used to getting away with one hundred years is. Hey we're the nc double a. We we run college sports and you love them you know. I think that they were trying to win. Everything Their entire model works on treating student athletes as the special types of people. Who don't get any sort of compensation one to chip away at that exterior. And you recognize that these people are generating revenue and they should be compensated. Accordingly entire amateur model falls

Gorsuch Cavenaugh Josh Blackman Supreme Court South Texas College Of Law Ncaa Football NC
Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of ‘Amateurism’ Rules by NCAA

ESPN Chicago 1000 - WMVP Show

01:10 min | 3 months ago

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of ‘Amateurism’ Rules by NCAA

"Unanimously today that the went too far in blocking some education related aid for student athletes. Decision that comes as college athletic struggles with the issue of how to preserve its amateur status. The court said that the violated antitrust laws when it limited the amount students could receive for musical instruments, scientific equipment, postgraduate scholarships, tutoring Academic awards and paid internships. Writing for the court Justice Neil Gorsuch said U. S District Judge Claudia Wilken was correct in dismissing the organization's argument that antitrust law doesn't apply. Her decision, he said, was based on quote an exhausted factual record, a thoughtful legal analysis consistent with established antitrust principles and a healthy dose of judicial humility, Close quote. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the Ah and its member colleagues are quote suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athlete, close quote.

Justice Neil Gorsuch Judge Claudia Wilken Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Supreme Court in 7-2 Ruling Rejects Challenge to Obamacare

The Joe Walsh Show

00:43 sec | 3 months ago

Supreme Court in 7-2 Ruling Rejects Challenge to Obamacare

"Despite worries by Democrats that it might be overturned. The U. S Supreme Court ruled that the affordable Care act better known as Obamacare remains valid, rejecting a claim by a group of conservative states that a recent change to the law made it unconstitutional by 7 to 2 vote. The court said challengers did not have legal standing to sue because they did not make us strong enough showing that the law harm them in their descent. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken the case and declared it unconstitutional. The law's challengers 18 Red States, led by Texas Urged the court to rule that Obamacare's requirement for nearly all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay an income tax penalty, known as the individual mandate was unconstitutional. And for that reason, they said, the entire law must be

U. S Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch Samuel Alito Red States Texas
The Obamacare Decision by SCOTUS Shows They Are Cowards

Mark Levin

01:54 min | 3 months ago

The Obamacare Decision by SCOTUS Shows They Are Cowards

"The obamacare decision by the Supreme Court today is expected. And I'll tell you why not, for reasons so called legal analysts have to say. Because once these unconstitutional laws take hold They're almost impossible to undo. So the Supreme Court by 5 to 4 with Justice Roberts, the chief justice, flipping Wasn't 12 years ago. Turning into a tax case. He wrote The, uh, really the the law into, uh And for two forever Ville. And so no challenge will ever upset it. And Justice. Alito's dissent was brilliant. Gorsuch joined with him. We got all this head counting going on on T V. You know what? But they don't get at any of the substance, of course. This was a tax case. That's what the Supreme Court turned it into. And then when the tax issue Was repealed on the individual mandate by Congress. Suddenly, it's not a tax case anymore. Suddenly it's a standing case. So the Supreme Court turned itself three times. Now on this law, Obamacare into a pretzel. And those lawyers who really are not constitutional lawyers, but maybe their former federal prosecutors or former defense lawyers. Maybe I don't know. Former bankruptcy laws or whatever this is how they use their green eyeshades. And so that's that's not what's going on here. These justices are demonstrating over and over and over again. What a bunch of cowards there. Comey Cavanaugh really, so far disasters. Hopefully, that will change over

Supreme Court Gorsuch Justice Roberts Ville Alito Congress Comey Cavanaugh
Google Ultimately Prevails Over Oracle in Java API Case

Techmeme Ride Home

01:32 min | 6 months ago

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

Oracle Google Us Supreme Court Us Court Of Appeals Steven Brier Cnbc Sun Microsystems Brier Justice John Roberts Sonia Yar Elena Kagan Neal Gorsuch Brett Cavenaugh Clarence Thomas Alito
Biden Signs Executive Order Aimed at Expanding Voting Rights

The Mark Levin Show

02:29 min | 7 months ago

Biden Signs Executive Order Aimed at Expanding Voting Rights

"So biden marks the fifty six anniversary of bloody sunday by signing executive order to make voting easier and he takes aim at trump over. Voter fraud claims that unprecedented insurrection in our capital on january six. Now we know. It wasn't an insurrection. Nobody was armed. Nobody had a weapon. Nobody's been arrested for having a weapon. The only shooting that took place was a capitol hill. Policemen shooting at and she died a veteran. How do you have an insurrection. Without weapons was never an insurrection. It isn't an insurrection. And i'll continue to say that it was violent and it was an attack on the capitol building. That's what it was but it was not an insurrection. But they can't stop and they won't stop because the media are propaganda even in the midst of a pandemic he said the judge appointed upheld the integrity of the vote. We have a corrupt majority now on the supreme court intellectually corrupt and politically left. They're cowards and the leading cowardice. John roberts i hate to tell you this amy coney barrett and brek having in on it. They've had multiple opportunities including today to clean up this mac and uphold the constitution of the states. And make it very clear. What needs to be done clarence. Thomas has said so over and over again. Sam alito said so over and over again no gorsuch said so over and over again. The barretts already a huge disappointment and cavenaugh is. And i knew he would be now. Let's get back to this insurrection. They talk about the democrat party strategically and meticulously went into the battleground states and destroyed. Their voting systems violated the federal constitution. What around the republican state legislatures not to protect minorities but to protect joe biden and the democrat party. That's what they're about.

Biden Amy Coney Barrett Brek Sam Alito Gorsuch John Roberts Cavenaugh Supreme Court Clarence Thomas Democrat Party Joe Biden
Computer Crime Law Scrutinized at Supreme Court

Techmeme Ride Home

03:28 min | 10 months ago

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

FAA Gorsuch Van Buren Supreme Court Aaron Swartz Justice Neal Gorsuch Us Government Justice Department Government Georgia MIT Aaron Samuel Alito Fisher Alina LI Congress Instagram
Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

Mark and Melynda

07:08 min | 10 months ago

Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

"A lot for being with us on this day after Thanksgiving. It was right before Thanksgiving late Wednesday. When the U. S Supreme Court The majority said, even in a pandemic You can't put away the Constitution. Now. In New York governor Cuomo says that he issued these restrictions on places of worship. Based on science. And safety. And so this is a fascinating ruling. In many regards number one. It's a big plus for religious freedom. Number two. It was just this past summer. That the Supreme Court ruled basically the opposite. In a case and there's some other cases that are being considered. I believe some cases California, New Jersey, Louisiana, So this is all about the Supreme Court blocking New York's governor from enforcing 10 and 25 person occupancy limits On religious institutions. Courts, the restrictions would violate religious freedom. And are not neutral because they single out houses of worship or especially harsh treatment. Or said there's no evidence that the organizations that brought the lawsuit have contributed to the spread of cove in 19. And this was one of those 54 decisions. With Chief Justice John Roberts. Going along with Justices Stephen Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. And in their descent. Chief justice. Roberts said he saw no need to take this action because New York had revised the designations of the affected areas. Governor Cuomo essentially Said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did rule on it and also in the sending opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this unlike religious services, Bike repair shops and liquor stores generally don't feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more. She went on to say justices of this court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials. About the environments in which a contagious virus now infecting a million Americans each week. Spreads most easily. Those are the words and the dissenting opinion from Justice. Sonia Sotomayor, your Down the majority, and this may be the new power five and this is one of the key developments out of this ruling. A new power five on the Supreme Court. Barrett Gorsuch. Thomas Alito. And Cavanaugh. Three of whom, of course, were Appointed By President Donald Trump in the Majority opinion. Justice, Gorsuch said this, he noted that Governor Cuomo had designated among others, the hardware stores acupuncturists. Liquor stores and bicycle repair shops as essential businesses. That were not subject to the most strict limits. Like these places of worship work. Gorsuch said. We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well. When we do So it Zbig deal for the Supreme Court. It's a big deal for I mean, let's face it all those evangelicals that voted for President Trump. They've got to be doing a victory lap today, right? Maybe you are a swell 51283605 90. If you'd like to be a part of the program here, you give us a call or send us a text on K. O. B. J. It is because Amy Barrett just got on the court. Right, So it's really The first significant indication Of a rightward tilt to the court. And I mentioned this and may and July Supreme Court rejected challenges. Virus related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada. At that time, the Chief Justice John Roberts, Joined the courts Democratic appointees, which of course, then included Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And those rulings they stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic. So The New York Times, Right said. This is just One example of how profoundly President Trump Has transformed the Supreme Court. This New York Times P, says Justice Bharat Help the chief justice of body blow. Casting the decisive vote in a 5 to 4 ruling. On religious services in New York. And New York Times says this is most certainly a taste. Of things to come. About this 51283605 90 here on Caleb E. J. It is an interesting question, right? In the summer time. Even the Supreme Court said, Look You may not like it when these local officials are trying to close the church. But You're dealing with health and safety issue. And there are rights. Given to local officials in the event. Of health and safety issues. Well, not in this case, the governor there in New York, Andrew Cuomo. He criticized the Supreme Court. Or overturning their restrictions. He said It was Morrell Astrit Ivo of the Supreme Court than anything else. He called the ruling irrelevant. Said it would have any practical impact because restrictions Are not in place and had been dialed back well. You know, it's interesting that even in the Opinion. That was written by Sonia Sotomayor, right? When she was talking about The court plays a deadly game and second guessing the expert judgment of health official. Let's stop right there.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Gorsuch Cuomo Sonia Sotomayor New York Stephen Bryer Justice Sonia Sotomayor President Trump Barrett Gorsuch Thomas Alito Governor Cuomo Elena Kagan Zbig U. Amy Barrett California Louisiana New Jersey Cavanaugh
Supreme Court Strikes Down New York COVID Restrictions

The Mock 'N Rob Show

06:35 min | 10 months ago

Supreme Court Strikes Down New York COVID Restrictions

"The new Supreme Court has spoken, and it is a much different message as it relates to Covad restrictions from the government. 93 w A. B C. It's the Mark and Rob. Show him Rob Mok is out Abdul in for Mok. And obviously, this came down late on Wednesday. With yesterday being Thanksgiving. We didn't get a chance to get to it. But the Supreme Court essentially striking down the order from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, putting a limit on how many people could attend certain religious services again simplifying a very complex issue, but basically saying Hey, If you say liquor stores and bike shops can have whatever. Then you can't say religious institutions can't have a two almost soon. You say they got it wrong. Um, not necessarily. I think they got it right. But it was the question Woz. Um Did the rule really apply anymore? Because the mayor of New York City had sort of lift exits. The Governor York had sort of color coded like from orange thread in the synagogue to church. We're back in the orange category. Not the red category. So the question was. Is this really an issue at all? But what this gets, too? And it's going to sound really where I got to get in the weeds for just a little bit Sure, because we should point out the people hearing your voice. You are a man of all you are an attorney license in two states, which means we gotta start paying my annual to send to stop it. It's gonna cost about 350 bucks. There is this issue was called muteness and rightness. Muteness basically means that the issues over and the court doesn't have to deal. With it right. This means the issue isn't ready yet for the court to deal with, And so what? I'm thinking what the Supreme Court did Well said, Hey, technically, the issue is moot in the sense that no. They change the color code. This game and all charges. You got to go back to 50%. But they said this could come back up again. And so we want to make sure that the issue is is sort of settled, at least for right now, and that's why I think that's I think that's why they did what they did because you can't Treat religious institutions differently unless you've got a really, really good reason to do it. It's like it's got. Let's just all the strict scrutiny analysis and I'm like really delighted, said It's truly with the girdle on which is what he said. It's like No, that's that's not it. It's no, that's not it. Um In a nutshell. You you have a situation where I don't see why. I just couldn't remember to everybody the same, which is like a 15% capacity across the board. 25% capacity across the board. You gotta social distance and that'll that'll take care of it. But now we got the mayor. The Governor York City say the courts rule doesn't matter because we're no longer in that red So we're now in the Orange zone. But still, the court could say, Hey, this will come back. We just want to make sure that we know exactly what's going on. Because, well, well, I do agree with with in principle with the theory that hang in the Constitution doesn't stop for pandemic. You still have to You're still you're still in the pandemic. I have so many legal questions off of this. And if you are really ever you see the read these articles and said, But why did you this This is this is writing Abdul's wheelhouse. So the first question I have is when a ruling like this comes down because we've seen people like in the state of Indiana be very upset that the governor and in the early days of the pandemic said Well, religious liquor stores can stay open. But these places have to close and go into a liquor store. But you can't go in here. Does this apply across the country now? Does everybody have to look at this and go? Okay. This is the new law like how do we snow? Because this we're basically dealing with emergency orders, so the emergency order only applies to the emergency. The order. You need actual case X again up to the Supreme Court. So what does that mean? Cause I would look at this and say this is a This is a case. So what? No, it's no. It's Zen emergency hearing. Um For lack of a better term kinda figure how to explain this in like 10, seconds or less. Since keeping relatively simple in a nutshell, The court will hear cases like you know. Plessy vs Ferguson served Kendall versus shabbas or something like that has gone through the district Court, the appellate court and then to the Supreme Court. Then the court will also hear these sort of emergency orders, which is Hey, our rights are being violated. We need to know a quick opinion. Next. Why Z, which which gets to need to where I was going to go? Which is? How does the court decide? I was gonna ask you that question. This seems like it came very quickly versus these cases that sometimes you know, we'll hear an argument in October and they don't rule until June. Or you give it I say that it takes forever to go to go through. These sort of things are for those specific issues. So like Trump may appeal Some ruling related to the election, and that would be just for that specific thing. It wouldn't have some overarching. Apparently it was in the emergency order category, for example. Hey, we need to throw these ballots out right now. Because December 14th, the Electoral college is going to do X Y Z so the court will now the court can hear things on an expedited basis. I'II Bush versus Gore. Which, interestingly, which, by the way only applies to Bush versus Gore. Well, so let's let's let's branch off that rabble by the whites, The mark and Rob Show Mark is out, Rob here of duels in for Mark, We're talking a little bit about this. Ruling by the Supreme Court. Limiting of the governor of New York's ability to restrict religious activities were trying to from a legal perspective sort through what that means. One of the fascinating things for me reading about this is how Gorsuch was sparring with Roberts in their legal written opinions now wouldn't Jerry Springer they weren't yelling at each other on stage, but the different articles I was reading, say, said, this is pretty intense for supreme for two Supreme Court justices. This is basically their version of sniping at each other is that is that unusual for judges? It is not uncommon for judges to take little pot shots at each other. Supreme Court has done it even on that level on that level yet because they're all so they're still human beings. But you know this because I want to lead us to another look, they clearly they are brilliant whether you agree with their their judicial philosophy or not there. They're brilliant legal people, So they know they're smarter than everyone else, right? I mean, that comes off a lot of times when you hear them question the people at the court, But this this is unusual for them for one, the leaders to take shot and another elitist and it is in the sense that you have both know too conservative judges what may be a bit more ideological conservative than the other. But it is not uncommon for judges, too. Occasionally taking taking ticket but sort of a backhanded compliment to each other. So to speak, Okay? I did

Supreme Court Rob Mok Governor Andrew Cuomo Covad Abdul's Wheelhouse ROB Mark Plessy New York City New York Ii Bush Government York City Gore Indiana Kendall
Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on New York houses of worship

All Things Considered

04:14 min | 10 months ago

Supreme Court blocks strict COVID-19 restrictions on New York houses of worship

"Of New York state's strict attendants limits on religious gatherings. The rules were designed to help slow the spread of the Corona virus. It's 5 to 4 decision highlights tensions that have grown during the pandemic between secular leaders and some religious groups that also opens a window on the new makeup of this court. Now that Amy Cockney Barrett is on the bench. NPR's Brian Mann is in Westport in upstate New York and has been following developments have Ryan Hey, happy Thanksgiving, Ari. Same to you. New York has seen tens of thousands of covert 19 deaths. So what immediate impact is this ruling going to have on the state's attempt to fight the pandemic? State officials say there's no immediate impact. The Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Jewish groups brought this legal challenge and state officials have already rolled back the so called red and orange zones that covered their churches and synagogues. So the rule limiting attendance to his fewest 10 people, even in big religious spaces. It wasn't actually being enforced. But the ruling could limit new restrictions here in the future at the number of cases really surges again in New York, and this also sends a message. You know two other governors around the country how the Supreme Court will look it at any of their restrictions. What's the reaction been today from the religious groups that brought this case? Yeah, they've declared victory. They say this is an important win for religious freedom. They point out that New York was still allowing so called essential businesses to operate in Corona virus hot spots without the same level of restriction. And this win for religious leaders is reversal from the Supreme Court's posture just last summer that gave governors ah lot more leeway fighting this pandemic. I spoke about this with Douglas Laycock at the University of Virginia, he's legal expert on religious liberty. Governor's orders in New York, where some of the mystery Cockney and in the country the first case where Amy Cody Barrett really makes a difference is compared to respect her Ginsberg and it slipped the result and they're not going to be different from the governor's anymore. They're really going toe examine closely for signs of discrimination. And Laycock points out, Ari that governors can still restrict religious gatherings. They just can't restrict them in ways that are different from rules for businesses or government buildings. And now New York governor Andrew Cuomo was named personally in the lawsuit. How did he respond to the ruling? He described this as a political statement being made by this more conservative bloc that now defines this court. But in his daily coronavirus briefing today, Cuomo did also acknowledge the complicated tension here. Look, I'm a former altar boy Catholic Catholic grammar school Catholic high school Jesuit, said college, so I fully respect religion. And if there's a time in life when we need it at the time is now. But we want to make sure we keep people safe at the same time, and and that's the balance we're trying to hit, especially through this holiday season. And I should add, are that this isn't really new. Here. We've seen deadly Corona virus outbreaks in New York around religious communities following ceremonies, funerals and weddings, for example, right from the start of this pandemic, and religious leaders have clashed repeatedly with caramel, also with New York City's mayor. Over how far elected officials can or should go to limit new infections. Now, you mentioned that this reflects the new makeup of the Supreme Court, and there was some tense language in the opinions tell us about what the justices said. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence of green with this decision that was pretty biting. He wrote that, according to Governor Cuomo, and I'm reading here, quote it may be unsafe to go to church. But it's always fine to pick up another bottle of wine shop for a new bike or spend the afternoon exploring your distal points and meridians. That's Reference thereto acupuncture clinics that remain open in New York. Meanwhile, in her dissent, Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that in the past, the Supreme Court has given public officials broad leeway in cases involving religion where public safety is a concern, she pointed The fact that the Supreme Court upheld President Trump's ban on immigration from certain Muslim countries. So justice Sotomayor suggesting that this ruling reflects a double standard. NPR's Brian Man, Thanks a lot. Thank you worry. It's a tough call to make telling your family you won't be

New York Amy Cockney Brian Mann Ryan Hey Supreme Court Douglas Laycock Amy Cody Barrett Governor Andrew Cuomo Westport NPR Roman Catholic Church Barrett Laycock University Of Virginia Ginsberg Cuomo Neil Gorsuch Governor Cuomo Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayo New York City
Supreme Court Rules New York Cannot Limit Attendance At Houses Of Worship Due To COVID-19

Here & Now

04:54 min | 10 months ago

Supreme Court Rules New York Cannot Limit Attendance At Houses Of Worship Due To COVID-19

"Some religious groups in new york are celebrating last night's rare late night. Supreme court decision blocking an executive order from new york governor andrew cuomo that restricted attendance at religious services in their neighborhoods because the pandemic ultra orthodox jewish organizations in brooklyn and queens and the roman catholic diocese of brooklyn claim. That cuomo single them out. The state pointed to the recent spike in covid nineteen cases. And then there was that alarming ultra orthodox wedding last week. The two hundreds not wearing masks. The court's decision was five. Four with its newest justice emmy coney barrett considered the fifth vote. Emily brazilan staff writer at new york times magazine and fellow at the yale law. School is here emily. Thank you for taking a break from your thanksgiving thanks. You are welcome. Glad to be here. And we should say the to litigants the ultra orthodox jewish groups and the catholic diocese were already not subject to these restrictions. Because they've been lifted there's a color system for restrictions in new york and Cova cases had obey abated in their area. But what was the argument from the court in blocking even targeted restrictions. Well the corpus arguing that new york hadn't shown that less strict measures would be enough to protect public health. Which is a pretty cursory kind of way of thinking about this. You can see the concur. Ince's by justice gorsuch as justice cavanaugh. That some of the conservative judges didn't like the idea that essential businesses which were permitted to open a new york included stores but did not include houses of worship. And i think the odd thing about the majority's analysis here is what it's comparing so the majority behaves as if people going to stores are the same as people congregating in a house of worship even though it's very unusual in store for lots of people to be sitting together or certainly singing or chanting together for a long time. That's all in a church or synagogue or a mosque and we know that that is a riskier activity. So there was no discussion of the science or scientific public health considerations in the majority's opinion. And what about chief. Justice john robertson. The three liberal justices dissenting. What did they say. Well chief justice. John roberts says there's no reason for us to decide this right now for the reason that you gave earlier new york had a lift these restrictions for now because the krona virus spread is not as bad in the city so these restrictions said that in the red zone the highest risk new york. You could have ten people in a house of worship in the orange zone. You could have twenty-five people but the catholic archdiocese in the docks synagogues that have sued. They no longer are subject to those restrictions and so she's jeff roberts was making a kind of traditional conservative judicial modesty Moved here in which he said. Look if they're subject to these restrictions again maybe they will be proved to be unduly harsh but at the moment. They're not so we don't need to step in here. And this is a classic example of a judge saying you know what. Let's leave this in the hands of public. Health officials not have judges step in to make these decisions. Unless it's absolutely necessary will be clear. What does it mean. I mean be clear. Only because i'm not able to figure this out. Temporary decision made on an emergency basis by the way when ruth bader ginsburg was on the court roberts sided with the liberals and the decision was in favor of restrictions that was when california had restrictions in place. So obviously there's been a tilt here but what does this mean for other states for new york when it comes to restrictions on houses of worship in the pandemic y- i'm kind of scratching my head about that too. I mean it looks like what the court is saying. Is that if you have businesses open you have to treat churches and other houses of worship just like those businesses but without paying attention to the greater risk that the church that you know religious service can entail and that's very strange to me because it seems so at odds with the science and what we know about the spread of coronavirus. And so you're right. This is a decision. That's a temporary restraining. Order against new york. The merits the kind of larger case is still to be thrashed out the lower courts and so one hopes going forward that there will be more attention to these apples to apples. Comparisons and figuring out what the state really needs to do to protect public health and mall many have seen the video from the acidic wedding in brooklyn this month. Hundreds packing a synagogue. No-one wearing masks mayor. Bill de blasio said or organizers will find fifteen thousand for violating restrictions. And so we're keeping an eye on that to see what happens. There might be any kind of consideration of

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Roman Catholic Diocese Of Broo Coney Barrett Emily Brazilan New York Times Magazine Catholic Diocese Justice Gorsuch Justice Cavanaugh Justice John Robertson Cuomo Jeff Roberts Ince Queens Brooklyn Supreme Court Yale Emily John Roberts Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The Supreme Court Allows More Time For Pennsylvania's Mail In Voting

TIME's Top Stories

04:23 min | 1 year ago

The Supreme Court Allows More Time For Pennsylvania's Mail In Voting

"The Supreme Court allows extra time for Pennsylvania's mail in ballots by Marc Sherman and Mark Levy. Washington. The Supreme Court will allow Pennsylvania to count mailed in ballots received up to three days after the November third election rejecting a Republican plea in the presidential battleground state. The justices divided four four on Monday an outcome that upholds a state Supreme Court ruling that required county election officials to receive and count mailed in ballots that arrive up until November sixth. Even if they don't have a clear postmark as long as there is not proof it was mailed after the polls closed Republicans including President Donald Trump's campaign have opposed such an extension arguing that it violates federal law that sets Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and that such a decision constitutionally belongs to lawmakers not the courts. The State Republican Party Chairman Lawrence Tavis said the party disagrees with the decision and noting the four four decision. It only underscores the importance of having a full supreme court as soon as possible to be clear. The Supreme Court decided not to grant stay which does not mean the actions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would withstand a legal challenge to their judicial overreach. Should the court hear the case tape said? Nancy Patty. Mills Chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party accused Republicans of trying to sow confusion and disenfranchise eligible voters. This is a significant victory for Pennsylvania voters. Mills said in a statement, the Democratic majority on the state's High Court had cited warnings that postal service delays could invalidate numbers of ballots and surging demand for mail-in ballots during the coronavirus pandemic to invoke the power used previously by the state's courts to extend election deadlines during a disaster. Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the three liberal justices to reject Pennsylvania Republicans call for the court to block the State Court ruling. Justices Samuel Alito Neal Gorsuch Brett. Cavanaugh and Clarence Thomas would have required the state to stop accepting absentee ballots when the polls close on November third. There were no opinions accompanying the order. So it is impossible to say what motivated either group of justices the conservative justices have been reluctant to allow court quarter changes to voting rules close to an election. The court also is weighing a similar issue from Wisconsin but in that case, the ruling being challenged comes from a federal appeals court and the Democrats who are asking the justices to step in. Most states make election day the deadline, but eighteen states half of which backed trump the twenty sixteen election have a post election day deadline with nearly a million votes already cast in Pennsylvania, we support the court's decision not to meddle in our already working system Pennsylvania's Attorney General Democrat Josh Shapiro said in a statement. On, a separate track Republicans in the State House have pressed Governor Tom Wolfe a Democrat to agree to eleventh-hour legislation to eliminate or limit the three days under the court's order. The case is one of many partisan battles being fought in the state legislature and the courts primarily over a male in voting. In Pennsylvania amid concerns that a presidential election result will hang in limbo for days on a drawn out vote count in the battleground state. And Pennsylvania the State Democratic Party and a liberal group the Pennsylvania Alliance for retired Americans had salt an extension of the election day deadline to count mailed ballots. About two point eight, million mail in ballots requested and approximately nine hundred thousand returned democratic registered voters are requesting mail ballots at a nearly three to one ratio over Republicans, and it's September seventeenth ruling the divided state Supreme Court said ballots must be postmarked by the time polls close and be received by county election boards at five pm on November six, three days after the November third election it also said that ballots lacking clear postmark could be counted unless there was evidence that they were mailed after the polls closed.

High Court Supreme Court Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Supreme Court Pennsylvania Democratic Party State Court State Republican Party State Democratic Party Pennsylvania Alliance State House Mills Washington Samuel Alito Neal Gorsuch Bret Donald Trump Chief Justice John Roberts
The relationship between Justice Scalia and RBG

Fox News Rundown

10:42 min | 1 year ago

The relationship between Justice Scalia and RBG

"Lies in state in the Capitol today, the first woman ever given that honor in the first Supreme Court justice since William Howard Taft and he'd also been the president. Justice. Ginsburg's casket was at the court for two days for people to pay their respects, including President Trump, and the first lady booed when they got there. The president has had nice things to say about Justice Ginsburg since her death, you may agree. You may not disagree with her, but he was an inspiration to a tremendous number of people. I say all Americans, and now, he says, it's his job to fill that seat on the court. I think it's very important that we have nine justices. And I think the system is going to go very quickly. The president plans to announce his nominee tomorrow. Joe Biden, and a lot of other Democrats say he should fill that seat if he wins the election in light of Republicans blocking President Obama from filling a seat in an election year, the seat President Obama would have filled incident. Scalia's went to Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland. For all the fighting. There's been over Justices Scalia and Ginsburg in life. They were very good friends. People always find it surprising that they were such good friends, Christopher Scully's the Eighth of Incident. Scalia's nine Children. There's a new collection published of his father's writing called The Essential Scalia. Their friendship went back. Really to the early eighties, when they were judges together on the D C circuit Court of Appeals, which is kind of like the second most important court in the country, and they they had a good working relationship that which really started back then they would help each other revised their drafts and their opinions. Apparently, the other judges on that court really didn't like getting advice about their writing and how to improve the clarity of what they're writing in the force of their arguments. But Justice Ginsburg liked getting and receiving that kind of advice, and so did my dad, and they formed what he called a mutual improvement society during their time on the court there. And And they had other things in common. They were they had similar backgrounds and that they were both New Yorkers grew up in New York around the same time, different boroughs but around the same time and shared a love of opera. Good wine eating good food. Both of their thousands were excellent cooks. Marty Ginsburg, in particular, is kind of a legendary cook, who would put together wonderful meals every New Year's Eve and they would celebrate New Year's Every every year is well. So you know, despite all their differences, and all the many things they disagreed about, including a number of opinions in this collection. They had a wonderful friendship were able to kind of focus on the things they had in common. Your dad in Justice Ginsburg, I don't know the statistics on how often they concurred or dissented on cases. But I imagine that they disagreed. Maybe as much as any two Recent justices have my right. Yeah, I think that that sounds right. I don't know the statistics, either. I think people would be surprised by how often they agreed with each other. But on the real hot button cultural cases, they often disagreed one of her most important, most famous opinions. Was Virginia Military Institute case from the mid nineties. And my My father wrote a dissent to that case, which is in this collection, the essentials, Scalia and it was hey actually gave her the draft of that descent a little bit earlier than one usually does just so that she would have more time to kind of Deal with it and grapple grapple with his arguments. And and, yeah, some of his most staying the sense we're in response to opinions. She didn't necessarily right but but joined, And I think that's probably true. Vice versa. Tell us very about the big bouquet of roses she got from him. My dad would get her roses for her birthday and I guess the Ah, I think the last time he did that. So the year before he died, one of the editors of the Essential Scalia Judge Jeffrey Sutton was visiting my father in chambers on on Justice Ginsburg's birthday. And he saw that my dad had two dozen roses for Justice Ginsburg and Judge Sutton started teasing Dad saying, You know, I haven't even gotten my wife two dozen roses over the course of our entire marriage. Why would you do this? And besides, When was the last time she cited with you on a really important 54 decision? You know, he's poking fun, You know, not not really being serious, but My dad gave a serious answer, which was some things are more important than votes. As I think I just kind of a great encapsulation of their of their relationship of their friendship they had they had Very different opinions of politics and of their jobs as a zoo judges and of what laws, men and with the Constitution, man. But, uh, how they voted wasn't the biggest factor in their relationship. It wasn't that those opinions didn't matter. And it wasn't that they compromised their beliefs for each other. But they didn't let those very strongly held beliefs undermine their very deep friendship collection of Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia is writing sort of like a greatest hits album. It's opinions and other writing about the law and the Constitution again called the Essential Scalia. This is really just a collection of his greatest Legal writings, opinions, speeches, essays and they collected together give a really good sense of white. Exactly. He was such a significant Supreme Court justice on it. They're having in one collection really makes it tangible for anybody understand that we'll just as a legal reference work. You've got to think it's going to end up being bought by or four A lot of lawyers and judges know absolutely in law students. I hope you know that he he wrote. Clearly, he wrote, Hey, had so many memorable phrases and his opinions. His logic was so strong and convincing that people just kind of they often went to his opinions first. And so it's good for people to kind of have that as a resource to keep going to those opinions. Even you know, even after His passing is also besides the legal community. It's also like you said. It's very readable, even for non lawyers for just a general interest audience who might, but he was just simply a very, very good writer. Yeah, it's exactly right. He hey, wrote. For? I guess we would now call it out of transparency. You know, Even when he was writing Supreme court opinions, he understood that they should be understood themselves by everyday citizens, not just legal eagles and people with legal degrees. He kind of a recurring theme of his opinions. Is that people should know what the court courts are doing and people that the court should not usurp power that properly belongs to the people. And I think that kind of reverence for the Democratic order is is kind of manifest in his in the clarity of his writing a lot of times if he had a vote, a personal vote on how a case would turn out it may or may not a lot of times did a line with how he ruled, But sometimes it probably wouldn't have right. Yeah, I think that's true. And that's especially true in one example is when he sided with the majority in a flag burning case. The majority ruled that, um, it was constitutional sorry from burning the flag was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment so prohibiting that in the state law was unconstitutional. My father often explained that he did not like Three idea of flag burning. If he were a king, he would ban it. But clearly to him falls under the protection of the protection of the First Amendment, and a lot of conservatives to this day do not like that opinion. My father thought the Constitution was clear about that. There are many examples in this collection, the essential Scalia of instances in which he stands up for the rights of the accused defendant's rights. There's a famous case in here where search and seizure cases as well there a couple of those in here where he just thought, you know the police do not have authority, for example, to use Scans of houses, Tio identify Marilou who was growing marijuana without that was an illegal search examples like that s so if he could just pass a law That was one thing, but actually sorry, there couldn't be even be lost for that because they so clearly violated the Constitution, even though obviously he wouldn't have approved of those particular actions. Sure. Hey, was also notice the talker during oral arguments. He has asked a lot of questions and clearly sometimes, though, they weren't really questions. They were just arguments he was making to his fellow justices. Do you think he went into most cases with his mind made up based on the briefs, and the president is a bad thing, but not usually the case. I think that the justices, you know, I can't say for certain, but my hunch is that they often have to go in with a pretty good idea, but I think for the most part, they do ask questions, not just Not just to be heard or not just to make arguments, but because they want to really engage with the arguments that the lawyers are making in the forward to this collection, Justice Kegan first of all, very happy that she agreed to write this beautiful forward, But she she says that she says just that, you know, Dad would ask these questions because he loved argument and kind of loved mixing it up. It wasn't just kind of wasn't just for show though he did. I think you're right. He was very kind of an engaging speaker and There was some study years ago that that found he was. He was the funniest justice by the standards of he drew the most laughter from the courtroom during oral arguments, which obviously isn't the most important thing to do, but just shows how much he he enjoyed that process that love for debate. Did it? Was it a two way street was? Was he persuadable? Absolutely. That's something justice Kagan mentions in her forward. She doesn't say when she ever changed his mind, but says They change each other's minds at times. Well, Christopher Scalia, It was great to talk, Teo, The book is called The Essential Scalia on the Constitution, the courts and the rule of law. Chris Scalia. Really good to talk to you. Thanks so much, Thanks so much appreciate your time.

Justice Antonin Scalia Justice Ginsburg Supreme Court President Trump Christopher Scalia Chris Scalia Marty Ginsburg Scalia D C Circuit Court Of Appeals Barack Obama William Howard Taft Joe Biden Ginsburg Justice Kegan Virginia Military Institute Merrick Garland Christopher Scully Neil Gorsuch
Judge dreadthe fight for Ruth Bader Ginsburgs seat

The Economist: The Intelligence

08:29 min | 1 year ago

Judge dreadthe fight for Ruth Bader Ginsburgs seat

"On Friday US Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died of cancer at the age of eighty seven. A candlelit vigil was held the following day outside the Supreme Court. Justice. GINSBURG was only the second woman appointed to the Supreme Court after being nominated by Bill Clinton in one thousand, nine hundred. I. In. Solemnly swear he was a champion of women's rights, and later in life she achieved restore status especially among young women. Now her death has set the stage for a divisive battle to replace her on the court. She was born in Brooklyn to an immigrant Father Dad was from Odessa in in Russia and to a first generation mother she was Jewish John. Fascination is the economist Washington correspondent and she was a trailblazer throughout her life. She was one of only nine women among five hundred men at Harvard law school, and when she arrived. Erwin griswold, who was then the Dean asked women in the class to stand up and justify taking a spot that could have gone to a man. She said the reason she took the spot is it was important that she understood her husband's work that would've made her husband Marty last Mardi was tax attorney well known in his own right he predeceased her but they had a famously loving and productive and equal partnership. She had a relentless work ethic in. Twenty five years in the Supreme Court she never missed today she's arrived four bouts of cancer before this fifth one killed her it was only after she got sick that she called by phone to oral arguments. I. Think People often have this idea that Supreme Court justices are sort of Stentorian wizards ready to shout down lawyer who they disagree with justice. GINSBURG was not like that she spoke very slowly very deliberately, which mirrors I think how she wrote and how she argued and how she thought she was meticulous. She was precise she she was not a showy justice. She came onto the court actually considered a moderate. There are a lot of people on the left who were upset when she was appointed because she was considered sort of two centrist. But as the court steadily moved rightward during her tenure, she has found herself the de facto leader of the courts liberal wing. Junk she spent a long time on the court. What did she achieve? Well, she was on the Supreme Court for Twenty seven years, and before that was on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is widely considered the second most important court in America for for thirteen. So she was a judge for forty years I was age sixty when I was nominated in some people thought I was. Too Old for the job. Now I'm into my twenty-seventh starting my twenty-seventh year on the courts on one of the longest tenured. Justices. So if you worried about my age. It was unnecessary. Before that, she argued six cases before the Supreme Court and she was involved with thirty more as the first director of the US women's rights project. The first of those report court cases was in Reid versus Reid for which she wrote a brief arguing against the law in Ohio that preferred men to women in naming executive estates. She won that case in her first oral argument before the Supreme Court. She argued against the military policy that denied many husbands, officers, the same housing and medical benefits that automatically provided officers. Wise. The thinking was that women are somehow inherently more dependent on their husbands and husbands on their wise. Now, in that case, remember she effectively represented the husband she represented family but she represented the shoes argue in favor of the husband's benefits and she austin said that she was not arguing for women's rights she was arguing for the constitutional equality of men and women. Her death is come at a critical time in American politics. It's just six weeks away from the election. So what impact does that have? Well I think it's a little too early to say that definitively. It looks as though both sides are gearing up for battle, but they seem to be quietly circling each other in two thousand sixteen. The Supreme Court is central to Donald Trump's success I think because. There is an open seat in two thousand, Sixteen Justice Antonin Scalia died, and Mitch McConnell who is then the Senate minority leader rather than hold a hearing on Barack Obama's chosen replacement for Justice Scalia whose Merrick Garland he came up with a rationale disguises the principle which was that the causing election was coming up the speech beheld open. So the voters could decide now that had never been done before it was clearly a power play. It was a live sort of issue for Republicans impelled I think a lot of them who otherwise would have held donald trump at arm's length to decide that just had to vote for him this time I. Think Donald Trump is hoping for a similar effect this time, but he also wants to get the filled as quickly as possible. For Democrats donations had started pouring in, they have been pouring all weekend. Democrats seem riled up by this. I think in their view if Donald Trump managed to get a successor onto the court, this'll be the seconds effectively stolen seat right? The I was Neil Gorsuch. who was given the seat that was held open by Mitch McConnell, and the second would be whoever donald trump nominees to replace justice GINSBURG who gets the seat because Mitch McConnell did not follow the principle he set up in two thousand sixteen. John Do you think Senate. Republicans have the numbers to they have the votes to get in trump's nominee through before the election. Well this is the question on everyone's mind. Right so far Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski Republican senators from from Maine Alaska, had said that they will not vote for replacement before November third they have said that the president who wins on November third you choose the replacement now that only gets Democrats to forty nine and they need fifty one because in the case of a tie Mike. Pence cast the tiebreaking vote Lindsey Graham had previously said he would abide by Mitch McConnell's rule from twenty sixteen. He has now gone back on that apparently because he's angry Democrats didn't roll over for Brad Cavanaugh Chuck. Grassley, who's a senator from Iowa has also previously spoken in favor of McConnell's precedent. I, have a very hard time imagining that when push comes to shove, he'll stand by his. Word and so there really is nothing Democrats can do unless they can persuade two other Republicans to come join them, and if they can't persuade those Republicans and tip the balance what happens. Then what are the consequences for the years ahead on American politics? It's clear that what McConnell did in two thousand sixteen was a tremendous violation of norms I think it's not a good principal to. Uphold I think arguing that this is now how Supreme Court seats should be awarded that in an election year, you effectively have to hold the seat open until the end of the election is a bad precedent but I think there's a difference between saying Republicans should be consistent for the sake of consistency and Republicans should follow this principle because that's how court seat should be given out now. From the Democratic Base, there's been a tremendous push to threaten Republicans with repercussions if. Retake. The Senate and the president in that includes making Puerto Rico in Washington DC states, which would effectively at least in the near in medium-term Give Democrats four senators people have also been talking about expanding the court. So the reason they are Nice Ring Court justices is not constitutional legal. It's just a statute. So if they were minded and had a majority had a president who would sign it into law, they put eleven or thirteen justices on the supreme court. The problem with that for Democrats I think is that it sort of shifts the terms. Of the debate that they are now winning I think the way Joe, Biden has pitched. This campaign is on the one hand. You have the sort of chaotic destructive Donald Trump on the other. You have Joe Biden Palm known figure who will get us back to normal. If, he comes out and endorses expanding the court or State of DC in Puerto Rico, which to be clear he has not done. He is actually a opposed expanded from court but if he comes out if Democrats threaten this, then the debate becomes a lot murkier. Then it becomes the radical change that Joe Biden wants to do right take fifty, two states and putting thirteen on Supreme Court against Donald Trump will keep things as are I think that debate does not play out very well for Democrats. John Thank you very much time.

Supreme Court Donald Trump Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mitch Mcconnell Dc Circuit Court Of Appeals United States Joe Biden Senator Senate Justice Antonin Scalia Democrats John Bill Clinton President Trump Erwin Griswold Harvard Law School Brooklyn Puerto Rico Odessa Washington
Polls Have Shown Voters Prefer Biden to Pick Next Justice

San Diego Business with Sully

01:23 min | 1 year ago

Polls Have Shown Voters Prefer Biden to Pick Next Justice

"Have this obligation without delay. I'm ham who so Fox News President Trump directing that tweet to Republicans following the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the president, indicating he plans to nominate someone quickly to fill the vacancy, But he hasn't yet unveiled a pick. This is a president who is guided by the founding of this country and the Constitution and you look at the justices he's put in place. Neil Gorsuch, you look at Justice Cavanaugh thes air great justices. White House Press secretary Kayleigh Mcenany. With the presidential election just weeks away, Democrats are opposed to seating a new justice. I don't want to get involved in this debate. Until at least, uh, justice against burning her family had time to mourn and celebrate and reflect Senator Joe Mansion of West Virginia. Fox News has confirmed Senate Democrats will hold a conference call next hour to talk about howto handle the vacancy. Senator Kamala Harris, who's also the Democratic nominee for vice president said this in a tweet. The stakes of this election couldn't be higher. Millions of Americans are counting on us to win and protect the Supreme Court. The latest Fox News poll takes a look at who Americans believe is best suited to pick the next justice. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden edging out President Trump by seven points 52 to 45%. Outside the

President Trump Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Fox News Supreme Court Justice Cavanaugh Donald Trump Senator Kamala Harris Vice President Senator Joe Mansion Joe Biden Neil Gorsuch Kayleigh Mcenany West Virginia Press Secretary White House
Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg sets up contentious U.S. fight over replacement

WBZ Afternoon News

00:59 min | 1 year ago

Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg sets up contentious U.S. fight over replacement

"In the Supreme Court, Second Woman Justice and the lawyer who helped and federal sex discrimination. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at her home in Washington. She was 87. Now the fight to replace her. The president has been ready to go should he have the chance to make another nomination to the Supreme Court? He had to already Cavanaugh and near Neil Gorsuch. And even just last week he didn't event where he said he's adding 20 names to this list. He has his list ready to go. He has a majority in the Senate. But with seven weeks now, less than that, until election day, the big question will be. Can they get this through once he does make a nomination? ABC is Karen Trevor's Senate Democratic Minority leader, Chuck Schumer, reminding Republicans that they blocked President Obama from confirming a justice, saying nearly 300 days before an election was too Soon and that the next president should make the pick. Justice Ginsburg has died less than two months before this election and the field ABC News President

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court President Trump Neil Gorsuch ABC Chuck Schumer Senate Karen Trevor Cavanaugh Barack Obama Washington
"gorsuch" Discussed on Let's Get Civical

Let's Get Civical

50:19 min | 2 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Let's Get Civical

"gorsuch" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show

The Andrew Klavan Show

01:33 min | 3 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show

"Democrats are furious that conservative five four supreme court majority is standing up for the constitution and the rule of law democrats hate that stuff all the guns and freedom of speech to yucky anyway this is bringing home to the dem's the importance of donald trump's appointment of neal gorsuch to the court rather than merrick garland who was the pick of president pajama bahama whatever his name was i can't remember now that his legacy is little more than a handful of sand washed forever out to sea by the rising tide of events anyway left wing blogger matthew yglesias tweeted quote the theft of merrick garland supreme court seat is legitimately the greatest heist in world history and we know this must be true because a glazed describes himself on his twitter page as quote a bold truth teller who refuses to be silenced unquote i'm not making that up the man calls himself a bold truth teller who refuses to be silenced i know it's hard to imagine when that level of pompous asked humorless self regard but there it is where was oh yeah anyway i figured if this bold truth teller who refuses to be silenced says the appointment of course was the greatest heist in world history we ought to make a movie about it we can call it ocean sixty three million in which approximately half the american electorate using strictly legal and constitutional means delay supreme court pick until by strictly legal and constitutional means they elect the president they want to pick the judge they want years the trailer for the film you either knew your out right now.

donald trump merrick garland matthew yglesias theft president neal gorsuch twitter
"gorsuch" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

02:23 min | 3 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"To us bringing a class action lawsuit a concerted activity for the purpose of of course we wanna know what did the founders say about bringing concerted effort yeah yeah so exactly right so neil gorsuch opinion i broadly speaking raises two arguments the first argument is this originalist argument and it is so dumb that the first time i read it i honestly i'm not kidding about this i honestly thought i had accidents scrolled to the to the descente man because what gorsuch says is that the nra when it was passed in nineteen thirty five the congress at the time did not intimidate that that would involve bringing class action lawsuits noting in the next sentence that rule twentythree did not authorize bader and class action lawsuits until nineteen sixty six so wrap your head around that one for a minute gorsuch argument is that congress did not explicitly anticipate a law that they would not pass for thirty one years to which i think the answer is well duh there we go happy opening arguments everyone well documents but seriously closed argument that is such a pasta asli facile sorry i don't even understand what that means like what is the argument you've just said that they didn't anticipate something so therefore what i don't it is so it is saying when congress passed the nfl ra they did not think that a class action lawsuit would qualify as they weren't considering class action lawsuits under the category of stuff that qualifies as other concerted activities for the purpose of mutual protection so for example they were obviously considering striking at the time right reloaded to that that is a form of concerted activity for the purpose of mutual production but the congress in nineteen thirty five was not specifically thinking about okay it being class action lawsuits and his evidence for how we know they weren't thinking about class action lawsuits is that we didn't pass federal rule twenty three for another thirty one.

nra congress neil gorsuch bader nfl thirty one years
"gorsuch" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

02:00 min | 3 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"A secure footing in the original understanding of the constitution i then evaluate the standard of review we're going to skip over that my my point in reading these provisions is that what neil gorsuch is doing in this concurrence is attempting to lay the groundwork for his future desire overturn chevron deference he is saying it is that the that the constitutional benefit here is not an individual right which it absolutely certainly you wanna talk about original meaning constitution there is no doubt that the founders of the constitution intended for the fifth amendment to vest individuals with the right as against the federal government and now incorporated to the states to be sure that they could not be convicted of vague laws that is crystal clear from the history of so wait are you saying that not only is he being in originalist he's being bad originalist yes always the worst yes i am and so gorsuch converts through this imaginary history the vagueness doctrine into what he calls the fair notice standard which again he describes a sounding not an individual right in herring in the fifth amendment but as part of the separation of powers doctrine if he is successful in characterizing opinions this way it will become exhibit a in the next case involving chevron deference to get to the supreme court where gorsuch will say look we said that the legislature cannot transfer away its power to define what the law is therefore when the legislature abdicates this responsibility to executive agencies it's up to us in the court to take it back and give it back to the legislature and oh by the way that activity of doing so involves my writing this opinion that's gonna come out in this particular fashion that is coming and let me say this.

neil gorsuch federal government chevron executive
"gorsuch" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

02:09 min | 3 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"Such vote but i want i want to read i don't know that any of these people have read concurrence and i wanna read front because gorsuch very clearly distinguishes his signing onto the opinion and and the reasons therefore and here's what he says ovo today's vagueness doctrine owes much to the guarantee of fair notice embodied in the due process clause that was at at and let me add parenthetically owes much is dramatic understatement there right it is is the vagueness doctrine is a constitutional doctrine here that is the signal that neil gorsuch is trying to rewrite the vagueness doctrine and that's what is incredibly dangerous here so keep that in mind it would be a mistake to overlook the doctrines equal debt to the separation of powers the constitution assigns all legislative powers in our federal government to congress it is for the people through their elected representatives to choose the rules that will govern their future conduct than there's some citation that power does not licensed judges to craft new laws to govern future conduct but only to discern in the course prescribed by law as currently exists follow it in resolving disputes between the people over past events from this division of duties it comes clear that legislators may not abdicate their responsibilities for setting the standards of the criminal law by leaving two judges the power to decide the various crimes incredible include able in a vague phrase for if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders it would leave to the courts to step inside and say who could rightfully due detained and who should be set at large this would to some extent substitute the judicial for the legislative department of government that is an internal quotation to some to variety of cases nor is the worry only vague laws risk allowing judges to assume legislative power vague laws also threatened to transfer legislative power to police and prosecutors leaving them the job of shaping vague statutes contours through their enforcement decisions i could read more but suffice that that i think this proves the case he concludes persuaded at the vegas doctrine enjoy.

neil gorsuch congress department of government vegas
"gorsuch" Discussed on Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments

02:07 min | 3 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Opening Arguments

"Wiggle room but but in in in virtually all cases that any alien convicted of an aggravated felony will be deported and an aggravated felony is then in turn defined in eighteen usc section sixteen as a crime of violence for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year and crime of violence is defined as including quote any other offense that is a felony and that by its nature involves a substantial risk that physical force against the personal property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense and of towns familiar yeah it sounds really really familiar and the four justice liberal majority says this seems to be the exact same case as johnson and that indeed is atlanta kagins opinion it says yeah this johnson and johnson johnson around ditch right it's obviously if we held that that language way sir if we held at that language was unconstitutionally vague in twenty fifteen it's only twenty eighteen come on it's still unconstitutionally vague today it's interesting that by changing by keeping the language intact but changing the the perpetrator from us citizen with felony possession of a firearm to alien they've lost the vote of chief justice roberts not sure exactly how that goes but they picked up the vote of of neil gorsuch why did they pick up gore such as on the one hand you might think wow this is this is great gorsuch recognizes the starry decisive precedential of johnson and and that's why he wanted to he's all know gorsuch in fact wrote a rather lengthy concurring opinion and this concurring opinion is one hundred percent what we warned you about when we took to the air on opening argue.

aggravated felony johnson johnson us roberts neil gorsuch one hundred percent one hand one year
"gorsuch" Discussed on Examining Politics

Examining Politics

01:48 min | 3 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Examining Politics

"Last voters and so far you know certainly what with neil gorsuch rights social conservatives have have what they want and i think this recent vote by the way on um on lateterm abortions uh um is gonna come back to haunt um democrats in in two thousand eighteen and and it's sure way of getting social conservatives eventual christians back out to the polls enthusiastic um in two thousand eighteen and maybe two thousand in twenty um but clearly the nomination of course at your and what's been going on with the lower courts in general um uh which hasn't been talked about as much but how successful president trump has been at staffing um the federal courts with with conservative judges oh absolutely has more that i sometimes think more than any other of peace of his coalition he has rewarded them the boast amirah part of the coalition that's been at the crystal republican me they reward republican for a long time and there was no drop off in two thousand sixteen uh among the sort of social conservatives particular if you look at an evangelical christians conservative catholics uh even though you know president trump does not fit the profile uh of a social conservative certainly in his personal life his personal behaviour and then that that that that annoys i think some commentators who are accusing social conservatives of being hypocrites yes right because they're so supportive of president trump yet you know he he seems to have some some significant moral failings um but i think you know what social conservatives are saying is that um it's not about donald trump um it's about you know social conservative positions and this about.

trump neil gorsuch president donald trump
"gorsuch" Discussed on The Young Turks

The Young Turks

01:51 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on The Young Turks

"This is the trump your address the congress was magnificent and you were so kind recognize mrs scalia and remember the justice referring to justice can we would pass away and to mention me my teenage daughters were cheering the tv okay i know the if we have to write pleasant nose to each other and i know that you have the right stuff like that otherwise trump will get mad and throw fits and maybe uh and your career aide said trump did not immediately receive the note but it was retrieved by legislative affairs director marsh short and then booed by trump on march tense helping ease eases concerns sir earlier in march he's livid because he said one little thing against trump gorsuch did but it turns out he knew it he a center not oh my god don't worry don't worry i love you and i love your eyes and i love everything about eight believe will serve your all serve your master so then he gets the known as i go all courtesy of owner that's matter now marsh short the same guy who retrieved the know pretty much admits it when he says the process obviously caused frustration but that frustration was compounded by the fact that gorsuch had sent him a personal letter that he never received in other words yes this story stories entirely accurate he threw a little bit like the child that he is and nearly pulled gorsuch uh but when he got the ask kissing letter he's like oh that's much better now he respects me this guy's totally joffery he just is as he's like a petulant child and so this is what he was thing you're doing with the supreme court pick god knows what else he would do and what kind of danger he poses to all of us but don't see you want warned the president is.

congress mrs scalia trump director gorsuch president marsh
"gorsuch" Discussed on The Young Turks

The Young Turks

02:10 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on The Young Turks

"More from the washington post the person added that he largely for this and other other sources that he largely false the white house for failing to adequately prepare trump for gorsuch his comments and to explain that supreme court nominees asserting their independence from the president who play them was a natural part of a successful confirmation process in other words they forgot to explain it to the man child and forgot what eighty eighty it he is the you'd have to tell the prisoner remember don't get absent donny he's going to say that he's not going to be a hundred loyal to you he's probably lying but the point is that he's supposed to say that to get confirmed came in child we are good me what a pathetic pathetic mess of a guy okay so he's goes off to handle here thinking about pulling him they have to like time down main street pulled up the thing is a bbb will be livid right uh and he would lose as bases base really liked the now he's brain that he always gorgeous aside the whole time other auto khor picked up he didn't even pick him anyway but then gorsuch winds up sent human know apparently the no got their league the reason why i don't believe the gorsuch as independent of trump is gorsuch is basically an ask cancer that's how we got the job in the first place at younger remember the main thing about gorsuch the one thing that made him stand out and why corporate america pick them in handed him to trump is that it in one case he was he's been pro corporate in almost every case right but in one case he said a truck driver should freeze to death if his corporation asked them to otherwise he should be fired every other judge there was nearly a dozen judges that looked at that case up and down the judicial system in america and they said build the guy doesn't have to freeze the death and gorsuch says if a corporation says you freeze to death you shut up and you freeze the death that's who gorsuch us so you think he wasn't gonna kiss trump's asked he's been kissing asas all career so turns out he did note in the note said.

washington post president donny gorsuch america
"gorsuch" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360

Anderson Cooper 360

01:30 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360

"Can't keep and also you know i think do a good job there's other interviews that are being scheduled outside of washington dc which make it very hard for us to vote on bills and also be at those very important interviews as well comes from the spirit thanks so much for being with us thank you up next the president on twitter today calling the washington post fake news what is it about this time reports that the president considered pulling neil gorsuch is nomination to the supreme court back in february after private comments criticising the president's attacks on the judiciary we will hear from the reporter who broke that story when we return support for ac 360 comes from go to webinar the web in our platform that hosted two point three million interactive web events with over sixty million views per year go to webinar believes webinars are one of the best ways to interact with your prospects and customers instead of business presentations or company websites turn your next presentation into a conversation with go to webinar for more information visit go to webinars dot com slash podcast and day another fake news claim from the president about reporting he doesn't like this time it's a story first in the washington post for the president considered withdrawing the nomination of neil gorsuch to the supreme court after the judge privately criticised president trump's attacks on the judiciary while the washington post reporter who broke the story josh dausi joins me now to talk about that.

president twitter neil gorsuch reporter trump josh dausi washington washington post
"gorsuch" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360

Anderson Cooper 360

01:30 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Anderson Cooper 360

"Can't keep and also you know i think do a good job there's other interviews that are being scheduled outside of washington dc which make it very hard for us to vote on bills and also be at those very important interviews as well comes from the spirit thanks so much for being with us thank you up next the president on twitter today calling the washington post fake news what is it about this time reports that the president considered pulling neil gorsuch is nomination to the supreme court back in february after private comments criticising the president's attacks on the judiciary we will hear from the reporter who broke that story when we return support for ac 360 comes from go to webinar the web in our platform that hosted two point three million interactive web events with over sixty million views per year go to webinar believes webinars are one of the best ways to interact with your prospects and customers instead of business presentations or company websites turn your next presentation into a conversation with go to webinar for more information visit go to webinars dot com slash podcast and day another fake news claim from the president about reporting he doesn't like this time it's a story first in the washington post for the president considered withdrawing the nomination of neil gorsuch to the supreme court after the judge privately criticised president trump's attacks on the judiciary while the washington post reporter who broke the story josh dausi joins me now to talk about that.

president twitter neil gorsuch reporter trump josh dausi washington washington post
"gorsuch" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

The Majority Report with Sam Seder

02:17 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on The Majority Report with Sam Seder

"Has has rabeni a implications of that a and then be more broadly what are the implications of the uh the trump administration on on on debt collection him down again i'm a non attorney sermon talked about what i know so i know that the nomination comfort conferation of judge gorsuch to the supreme court judge gorsuch archly wrote a recent opinion regarding debt buyers thirdparty debt buyers there is a case against santander usa where is pending before the supreme court judge gorsuch got answer them he guts you actually write the majority opinion on it he they voted that thirdparty dep eire's should inherit the rights of original creditors the reason why this is important is because the fair debt collection collection practices act does not apply to original creditors so when these thirdparty dep ours are now considered original creditors again they can continue harassing it even though they never loan the money out the cells even if they buy the dead five ten cents on the dollar they really don't have any actual monetary interest in the debt really except for the now they suddenly exemporer as a commodity right they were never involved in the original trend that i catch so like anything there's this is a weird decision that isn't all by itself bad in some way it is bad is it was fine the way it was but what it has done is if santander decides to now collect debt m four itself for its own debts they can actually remove that protection because then they can be ruled as a third party debt collector again because if they statutorily fall under that definition than it can be made an argument can be made but then if they don't want to do that they just want to hire somebody else are collected a law firm right the law firm with denby subject to the fair to characterize this so at just pious is that rolled down one chain.

santander usa eire debt collector law firm attorney gorsuch archly santander denby one chain
"gorsuch" Discussed on First Mondays

First Mondays

01:38 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on First Mondays

"So yeah it's my view on that another observation is a justice gorsuch in the argument a seemed to be wondering whether there was some kind of a statutory way such obstacle the court which the issue whether there was just no possibility for viewer these types of claims so it's your that abs hoping you could tell me the couple of jurisdictional tangles i'm stalled off in one is 12 fifty to be um which is you'll recall indicates congress's intend to strip courts of jurisdiction over final ores removal attack collateral attacks on them what do we do about that in your view and then also f one which the ninth circuit worked round by saying impart it was attributing the statute not restraining the statue but if we go on constitutional grounds we would be restrained the statute it's at least two clerks were judgment which of course the government we would expect them to find it much like an injunction so i don't how do we handle those two problems and the reason that exchange is interesting to me dan is that if they were divided four four even if softly if justice gorsuch wants to resolve this case on grounds that are somewhat esoteric then he kind of only complicates getting to a decision so you know i don't know to what extent he's just kicking the tires on man's but one thing that we know about gorsuch is that he is very willing to resolve a case on sort of.

congress gorsuch
"gorsuch" Discussed on The Daily

The Daily

01:54 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on The Daily

"With that the senate agrees to debate the future of american healthcare the senior senator from arizona is recognised thank you mccain has saved the vote in this place but just moments after it's done i stand here today looking a little worse for wear i'm sure he returns to the floor to deliver a message fires we're getting nothing done my friends were getting nothing done and always really done issue is confirmed neil gorsuch to the supreme court our healthcare insurance system is a mess we all know what those who support obamacare and those who oppose it something has to be done we republicans have looked for a way to end it and replace it with something else without paying a terrible political price we haven't found it yet and i'm not sure we will just hours leader republican leadership suffered a setback when mcconnell rushed elite night vote on his most comprehensive plan to replace obamacare and it fell far short of the votes needed the dipping is scheduled to continue this morning we'll be right back the daily is supported by stella artois these days truly memorable moments are rare that's why this summer stella artois wants to inspire everyone to host one to remember whether it's a midday soiree a rooftop happy hour or dinner under the stars through thoughtful details any moment can become an unforgettable occasion because memories are made when great food great friends and stella artois come together sell artois host one to remember.

senate senator arizona neil gorsuch supreme court insurance system mcconnell stella artois mccain
"gorsuch" Discussed on Fareed Zakaria GPS

Fareed Zakaria GPS

01:35 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Fareed Zakaria GPS

"Is on the one hand more hostile than anything that we have seen and on the other hand more arguably enabling side of encode dependent on each side because the audience engagement in this presidency is unprecedent dan when you look at this as a republican strategist what are the lessons you're getting you watch the the the healthcare you watched how the senators read what are the takeaways you're you're you're the trend lions here well first of the tweets are both reprehensible and probably just noise said because if you strip the rhetoric in the noise away if conventional republicans like paul ryan and mitch mcconnell trying to get a conventional conservative health care reform passed you didn't work at a pretty conventional tack conservative tax reform plan we got judge gorsuch confirmed conservatives are happy with that he may get another seat on the court to reach literally reshape the court taking action in serious i you just look at all these things despite all the chaos in the noise you have a pretty conventional republican agenda moving through congress one thing that is clear though the noise noises causing was put making the present less effective in terms of getting an agenda past if he can do it is republicans are less concerned about being on the wrong side of him now so you're seeing this now with health nice i think mcconnell still maybe it will put a rapt pull rabbit out of the hat and get gets a pass the senate like ryan didn't house but it's complicated in one of the reasons it's complicated is because republican senators at house members now much more so than in january they now suddenly say if i'm on the wrong side of trump it's going to be okay there's really no price to pay.

paul ryan health care reform congress senate mitch mcconnell gorsuch one hand
"gorsuch" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

01:35 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"So again gorsuch as main concern here is the court is gonna come back with school vouchers and say well sure we don't really want discriminate against churches but the is trying to push religion and we can't foster the church and pushing religion so no school vouchers that's what the court is leaving the door open to gorsuch says and this is the this is the most important line of his concurrence gorsuch bible is terrific he said listen he said he was terrific of the time mean as soon as from appointed him if by war of freaking mad at on the show gorsuch says the constitution quote guarantees the free exercise of religion not just the right to in were belief generally the government may not force people to choose between participation in public program and the right to free exercise of religion i don't see what it should matter whether we describe that benefits say as close to lutherans by status or close to people who do lutheran things by use it is free exercise either way is also another issue that is related and that's because the supreme court's about to take it up so the supreme court is bouts take up another case and this is the gay baker the the the gay wedding cake case rates so there is a bakery that is in colorado that will not cater a gay wedding and the colorado government has tried to persecute that bakery and the bakers say well that's a violation of our freedom of religion so gorsuch is concerned and you can see that he's concern that the court is about to decide whether businesses can operate in a religious manner congruent with free exercise if they don't serve gay couples cakes for example so gorgeous a gorsuch is point is that the court is leaving the door open to arguing that a state is not discriminating against a religious person but only against doing religious things.

gorsuch colorado colorado government gorsuch
"gorsuch" Discussed on Pod Save America

Pod Save America

01:30 min | 4 years ago

"gorsuch" Discussed on Pod Save America

"Very cool channel as though before we get to healthcare some breaking news this morning the supreme court has agreed here the trump muslim ban case and the supreme court stayed the lower court injunctions against the ban in a kind of convoluted way basically saying that the ban can stand for now with the exception of people who have and this is the term they used a bona fide a relationship with people in the united states you might be asking yourself what does that mean as exactly what everybody else is asking so there seems to be a lot of stuff going on here the people are just parsing through this is partially about the effect of having neil gorsuch on the supreme court which is and unfairness we can barely stomach but also their desire to send a message to lower courts about injunctions and also a statement from the conservatives of accord including gorsuch alito and thomas starting to speak to their belief that the on the merits trump will prevail i mean it'll listeners remember the this thing was sold to us is necessary because of some sort of urgent threat a from refugees coming from overseas or from the individuals in these countries it was sold as a one hundred twenty two ban ron daily corner 55 so that threat that urgency hasn't really panned out despite the night circuits ruling and the other efforts to slow this thing down so these guys are full of shit is what i'm trying to say but uh this recourse going to hear him up.

united states neil gorsuch alito thomas ron