33 Burst results for "Jessica Levinson"
"jessica levinson" Discussed on NewsRadio 1020 KDKA
"Jessica Levinson, Justice Bharat did not take any part in today's decision. She said that she needed Tio read up on the case. And I think that this was very politically smart for her because She can avoid a big political controversial question her first full day on the job. The Koven situation is going from bad to worse in the upper Plains Correspondent Jim Crow Sula Cove, it 19 hospitalizations have reached a new high for the fourth straight day in South Dakota. The number of daily new cases also set a record Self. Dakota has the nation's second highest rate of new Corona virus cases per capita over the last two weeks. Republican South Dakota Governor Christie Gnome, though Has tried to downplay the worsening situation and has refused to order a statewide BASKA mandate. L A Dodgers third baseman Justin Turner is under a major league baseball probe for returning to the field during last night's World Series game after a positive Coben test KCBS TVs Chris Holmstrom LB released a statement It reads in part, while a desire to celebrate his understandable Turner's decision to leave isolation and enter the field was wrong and put everyone he came into contact with that risk. When MLB security raise the matter of being on the field with Turner, he emphatically refused to comply. As for Turner, he tweeted that he felt great and had no symptoms at all. But experts say even if you're asymptomatic, you are still contagious. We've learned the general of the space force has tested positive for Kovar 19. This is CBS News. You can listen to CBS News Radio.
Supreme Court agrees to review Trump administration policy that makes asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for US hearings.
"Court says it will take up cases concerning President Trump's border wall and requiring asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while awaiting US hearings. These policies, which are known as remain in Mexico, had been cornerstones of the Trump administration's immigration agenda. Loyola Law professor Jessica Levinson Families and individual asylum seekers have to wait in Mexico for their immigration hearings. This has created a humanitarian crisis in Mexico. Almost 70,000 migrants have been waiting for their hearings. About half of these asylum seekers have just abandoned their claims. Policies were introduced in January of last year. The cases likely will not be considered until some time after the new year or at all if Joe Biden becomes president.
"jessica levinson" Discussed on Power 105.1 FM
"Time and expertise. We really appreciate it. Thanks Ryan by pleasure. Stay healthy. Finally, I'm joined by Jessica Levinson, professor of law at Loyola Law School and the founding director of Loyola Law Schools, Public Service Institute to talk about all things election law and voting And we have a lot to cover Professor Levinson. Thanks so much for the time. We appreciate it. Let me start with some of the terminology. People have been hearing a lot this year mail in voting an absentee voting specifically, but a confusion here. Are they pretty much The same or there's some differences that we should know about. They really are the same thing. So we tend to say absentee, if when we started to vote in our state, it was called absentee and we tend to say vote by mail. Frankly, if maybe we're a little bit younger, and if we're in a state that called a vote by mail, but there really is not a distinction. What Talking about is voting not in a polling place. We're talking about getting your ballot in the mail and then returning it. Maybe in a drop box, maybe in a polling place or maybe sending it back, But voters should be aware that absentee vote by mail at this point, they're really interchangeable. Now there are some differences between states and how one has to go about voting by mail. Whether or not you have to request a ballot, or it's automatically sent to you whether or not you need an excuse to vote by mail, or if you could do it for any reason. Talk a little bit about that. I think you just laid it out perfectly. So what we're seeing now and of course, that this is a system really influx as a result of the pandemic, So I'm talking to you from California. Pretty quickly after the pandemic began. Our governor said, You know what? We're sending every eligible voter a vote by mail ballot really important for people to know. Eligible voters who received balance. It's not everybody who could, potentially but who received the talent. And in other states, they've done the same thing. If you're registered to vote. If you're an eligible voter, you're going to get your ballot. Now there's every seven different flavors of this. Some states have said Okay, actually, you have to request your ballot but will automatically send you an application. To request that about other save the Fed you have Derek went your ballot and we're not sending you the application. So you have to take the affirmative step. And I know it sounds minor, but of asking for that vote by mail out application. I know these things down. Maybe not that sexy but in a tight election in a swing district. You actually can potentially determine the outcome based on something like did you get your vote by mail ballot automatically or did you have to act for an application? And then, of course, if you mention there's certain circumstances where You can just say once you're if you have to apply I want of open, They'll bow it and you don't have to give an excuse. Other state They're saying you need to give an excuse. But covert is OK and then even more restrictive state. Typically, those in the South are saying you need to give an excuse. And it can't be Cove it and currently there is very active litigation surrounding all of these issues, so I'm not going to necessarily take off state accepted, say, Please go to your secretary of State website. Oh, dear County Register, figure out what the current law is. They could at this point change, but that Kind of very broadly play of the land. There were a select few states not very many, but about a handful of them where they've been automatically sending out ballots to eligible voters. For a while. It's kind of how they conduct their elections, and this was before the pandemic and all the complications that we've seen this year. Correct. Exactly Think about Colorado. Think about Utah Think about Washington, so there are state where they have been conducting. Opie male. Elections for a long time now, and that's how we know that vote by mail is safe. Because there have been saved have used these processes for awhile, and there has not been rampant voter fraud. There has not been corruption in the system. Now those states are in a better position than others tape because they already have the infrastructure in place. Most other states had to ramp up really, really quickly and, frankly, some safety really still struggling. You create a whole other type of election infrastructure framework. I mean, you need everything from doesn't sound that exciting. But the paper, the printer, the machines that read the ballot drop boxes. All of that stuff is really important we've seen, you know, video term. I think Ohio where there's only one drop box. Tammy, and there are just a line around the block of people in their cars desperately trying to have the time to drop off the balance. And, you know, we talk about mail in voting, and we automatically think about literally putting the ballot in the mail. But depending on where people are and what the state and local rules are, there are other options for voting by mail, dropping your ballot off at certain locations, taking your ballot with you and either voting. Earlier voting on Election Day explain some of those potential options for people. Absolutely so it varies a little bit by state. Now I know it's frustrating to hear me keep saying it varies by face, but in our system. At the Constitution says states get to determine the time place and manner of elections. And that means elections are a patchwork. It means they're messy, and that's why we have this. Situation where I could keep saying well in the states, but the states and so yes, it is absolutely the case that typically speaking you don't have to mail back in. A ballad that you get in the mail. You, Khun! Bring it to a polling place. In some states, you can have somebody else bring it to a polling place. You can bring it to a ballot drop back. Or you can put it back in the mail. And of course, we've heard a lot that has made people nervous about putting about back now. I think that's why they dropped. These official drop boxes have become more popular. I'm joined by Jessica Levinson, professor of law at Loyola Law School and the founding director of Loyola Law Schools, Public Service Institute. We're talking about all things election law and voting and just kind of following up on what? You were just mentioning what power does the federal government have in our elections? It's really staggeringly limited, actually, so the date of the election is set by federal law. And when it comes to the federal government, you know big. You need to ensure that federal laws like the Voting Rights Act are here, too, so the federal government shouldn't Trying to make a decision that would violate federal law..
The health status of those in Trump's orbit
"Has the number of White House staff members and GOP officials infected with the Corona virus grows. President Trump has tried to show strength in videos released during his stay at Walter Reed. But his medical treatment including a steroid typically reserved for more severe cases of Cove in 19 is raising questions about his health status and ability to govern also trumps SUV ride to way to supporters gathered outside the hospital is drawing criticism for risking the health. Of his security detail and potentially hospital staff. We look at the implications of all of this with Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, former Obama White House health policy advisor. And vice provost of global initiatives of the University of Pennsylvania. Thanks so much for joining us, Dr Ezekiel Emanuel Thank you for having me a pleasure also with us. Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. Thanks so much for joining us as well discuss Levinson. Thanks for having me back. So, Dr Emanuel, I'll start with you. And I guess I'll just start with this SUV ride to supporters outside the hospital. I mean, you've called this decision shameful. Can you tell me why concerned you so much? A horse of all There was no need for it. No urgent need. Second of all, the president has got cove it and he should be recuperating. He is the leader of the Free world. On DH. Ah, he's sick, right? How do we know we think? Well, he's gotten the Regeneron Antibody cocktail. He's on run desert here is an ex amethyst so he should not be going out on the last thing is on may be. The most irresponsible thing he did is He is putting other people at rest the people who walked him down in the hospital, the secret Service in the car, just not a responsible thing to do. And it's sort of echoes to me the irresponsible behavior he demonstrated when he went to see off his potential donors in New Jersey knowing full well he had symptoms that were consistent. With a cove it and he probably knew he was covert infected on Thursday. What do you make of the fact then, since this is what his White House spokesman said that this ride was cleared by the medical team as safe to do. Wei have questions about that medical team and their judgment. They have not been forthcoming with the American public. That's putting it mildly. They've lied and evaded questions that are necessary for the public to make a decision about the president. On DH. Ah, many of us have some question about the wisdom of the therapeutic interventions that they're doing layering on decks, amethyst sewn onto the other medications that he's taking. So you know, I'm not. I don't have overwhelming confidence in their judgment. And even if the patient wanted to do it, you're the doctor. You're the expert in health care. You're also the supposed to be the expert in the spread of the disease and putting other people at risk. And none of it seems wise. Yes, I definitely want to talk more about the medications he's on. But first Jessica Levinson, I mean, Dr Emanuel is talking about the You know the reason that the public does need to know what his condition is. Can you talk more about that, in terms of what the public does have a right to know and why it's so important because you've mentioned national security concerns. Absolutely. And what a pleasure to be on with Dr Manual. And I will say that you if President Trump was Mr Trump than his medical history is really in his medical prognosis. It's really his own business. But he is somebody who's put himself in a position of enormous public trust. If the president has the sniffles, it's potentially A global issue and add to that the idea that the president has a potentially deadly disease in the middle of a pandemic dealing with that disease going right into an election. We're not before an election. We are in the election. Two million people have cast early votes were voting early in California. As of now, we're dealing with other serious National issues like wildfires and the idea that we would not have a full and fair accounting of the president's health. It's not just that it lacks transparency for the American public. It means that again. It's part of a consistent narrative that we don't know what to trust. We can't evaluate what's happening and again. This is not a private citizen. This is somebody who has enormous power over our lives. Enormous power on a not just the national but an international stage and It's deeply irresponsible that we would be kept in the dark about what is going on The fact that he would have doctors out there is aiding questions that they would say later. Oh, we just wanted to keep it. Upbeat tone instead of a truthful tone is something that the American public frankly should not have to stand for.
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KCRW
"It's seven o'clock. It is, of course, press play with Madeleine brand. What's on the show tonight? Madeline Larry. We're going to talk about the judicial philosophy of Amy Tony Barrett, President Trump's nominee to fill Respeto Ginsberg seat on the Supreme Court with our regular Monday Legal eagle, Jessica Levinson. She has a lot to say about Amy County barrettes, judicial philosophy. We're also going to talk about Trump's taxes and the blockbuster story out of The New York Times detail ing the fact that he hasn't paid taxes in years or very little in taxes and details of one building he co owns in San Francisco. Part of which he has rented out to the government of Cutter. So we'll find out more about that on the show tonight, All right, certainly a lot to talk about coming upon press play here on K C. R W with 7 P.m.. Coming up on all things considered out of this break. You're going to hear from a member of the Mosquito Creek Nation and a University of Kansas professor about a bill to address the number of native women who vanish or are killed. Not later. Parents desperate to get their kids outdoors and offline are choosing something called Wilderness School, but poor urban kids are missing out. Educators in Kingston, New York, are trying to change all that. Lovemore on yet another aspect of the pandemic. We're underserved communities and those hit hardest disproportionately affected by the virus. We also have greater Ella coming up in about 10 minutes. We're going to take a closer look at one particular proposition voters will be deciding on in November. Prop 15 would raise property Texas for high value commercial properties in California, bringing in More money for local governments and schools. But opponents, they say small businesses could bear the brunt of those extra costs. That's greater L A coming up at 6 30 here on K C, R W as well. Quick. Look at your road. Let's start in the CA home past 15 north before Cleghorn crash on the right shoulder on traffic Slow from Glen Helen Parkway South L. A 1 10 South bound before Vernon got stalled stall car that was clear to the right shoulder. And traffic is still recovering from Exposition Boulevard. It's 6 20 from NPR news. This is all things considered. I'm Elsa Chang and I'm Tanya. Mostly. Three years ago, a group of kayakers found the body of Savannah La Fontaine gray wind floating on the Red River near North Dakota. Savannah was 22 years old. Eight months pregnant and a member of the Spirit Lake Soon Nation authorities say she'd been murdered. Last week, Congress passed a bill that aims to address the alarming number of native women who go missing or murdered. It's called Savannah's Act. And it's been three years in the making. And joining us now to talk about this is Sara dear professor at the University of Kansas and Citizen of the Moscow G Creek Nation of Oklahoma. Welcome. Thank you for having me. Terry. You've been studying violence against indigenous women for over 10 years now, what's the scale of this crisis? Unfortunately, most native women in our country expect that they will be victims of violence, and the statistics bear that out. Almost 80% of native women will experience some form of physical abuse, and over half will experience some form of sexual assault. So when we talk about the homicide rates, they seem to be sort of the end result of these efforts to extinguish the lives of native women on reservations, and it just hasn't gotten the kind of attention that it deserves. Why has a lot of this gone unreported or or investigate it? Well, I think that native people in general just tend to be still really invisible in the larger society and our criminal justice system, particularly that that applies on reservations makes it very, very difficult to investigate a crime. You have a number of different agencies that may have all different directives or different protocols. You have the FBI involved. You have the U. S attorney's You have tribal police. You have Bureau of Indian affairs police, and the problem has been that the efforts to locate these women just have not been coordinated to what extent does This new act. The Savannahs Act help in this It's a great step in the right direction. I mean, the first thing that we really need to do is to figure out who is doing what and when. And so what Savannah's act requires is that the Department of Justice create a task force to make sure that everyone's on the same page when a woman goes missing from a reservation. What's the first thing we should do right? Because you get different answers to that? I will also require the Department of Justice to have training for law enforcement officers from the tribal police to the FBI to understand what their role is in finding these women and putting the families that he's that their case is being taken seriously. Because in the past, most families have reported that they didn't feel of the law enforcement authorities took enough action to try to locate their missing loved one. Why is this taking so long to get to this point? Well, I think that we didn't really have data until very recently that told us the true scope of this crisis. It wasn't until 1999 that the Department of Justice released any crime data pertaining to native people, So it really hasn't been that long that we have known about this problem. In many ways, this is your life's work. You've been working on this for many, many years on a personal note. How does it feel to get to this point where we're now seeing this what could potentially become law? It's sad that we have to have this law, but I think that one of the things that's most poignant about this law is the name of Savannah. This gives us hope it means that we are becoming visible. It means that native women matter and that our stories matter and that the families deserve answers. Sarah dear, is a professor of women, Gender and sexuality studies at the University of Kansas and a member of the Moscow G Creek Nation. Thank you so much. Thank you. Many wilderness schools report full enrollment and waiting lists, you know, think animal tracking fire making kind of the opposite of zoom class? But has been James reports from North Hampton, Massachusetts. The schools are not available to all families who are interested..
"jessica levinson" Discussed on WTOP
"I'm Tom 40 in Washington two days before the first presidential debate between Joe Biden and President Trump. There has been a new but also old topic. Mr Trump's finances. The New York Times reports President Trump 8 $750 in federal income tax is three year he won the presidency and the same amount during his first year in the White House Times. Reporters say they have tax returns for Mr Trump extending over more than two decades, including extensive information from his first two years as president. They say he pays no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years, largely because he reported losing much more money than he made correspondent Nicole Killian Trump is urging the Republican controlled Senate to confirm his Supreme Court nominee, Amy Cockney Barrett before the election. Republican senators are intent on moving on that Utah's Mike Leigh on ABC this week Thiss judge as an incredible background. This is a judge who will bring Her expertise to the table, and it will be brought to bear in the whole wide variety of scenarios. Justus Bater Ginsberg expertise was brought to bear in her case is legal analyst Jessica Levinson. She's likely to reshape the face of American society during her time on the Supreme Court. She's likely to play a significant role in decisions regarding abortion. Healthcare, LGBTQ rights, religious rights voting rights. The rights of criminal defendants. The relationship between states and the federal government tomorrow night in Cleveland presidential debate number one with Chris Wallace of Fox News, moderating CBS News political analyst Leonard Steinhorn For Joe Biden. The most important thing is that he doesn't take the bait when the president goes after him, and instead tries to turn the table on the president. Either, countering with humor that diminishes the president or indignation that a president would act in such a way that such a serious moment in our history on the West Coast, not wildfire threat is far from over. A new one in Northern California wine country is now driving thousands from their homes. There has been some progress in Southern California against the so called Bobcat.
Supreme Court blocks curbside voting in Alabama during pandemic
"Blocked a lower court ruling allowing curbside voting in Alabama due to the Corona virus pandemic for the July 14th primary election run offs, which determined the Republican candidate for the Senate. The winner there will then face Democratic Senator Doug Jones in November's general election. The high court also loosened absentee ballot requirements in three of the state's largest counties. Former federal prosecutor Jessica Levinson says that the ruling will make it more difficulty for voters to get to the polls, especially during the pandemic meal is by far the safest way that people can vote and for that to be made harder for them. Really is a tragedy. The way that you can pull the levers of power in elections and try and get to your desired outcome is to do things like this to make it harder for people to vote. 8 53 here. The Senate yesterday passed by unanimous consent
Trump administration urges SCOTUS to end the Affordable Care Act
"The trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to invalidate obamacare arguing parts of the affordable Care Act been done away with anyway Jessica Levinson is a professor at Loyola law school we're in the middle of a global pandemic it's hard to think of a worse time for anyone including the trump administration to say that we should ends health care coverage for millions of Americans the ACA has prohibited health insurers from denying coverage to those with pre existing health
Republicans sue California governor over vote-by-mail order
"Three GOP groups including the Republican National Committee are suing California governor Gavin Newsom executive order to mail he's there so they are suing the governor over his executive order to mail every voter in the state of ballot before the November election attorney Harmeet dealing with the Dylan long group is representing the plaintiffs she tells KNXV governors overstepping his authority what other states have done in this situation is mailed applications for absentee ballots to all registered voters I I don't have a problem with that then you get a person opening up their mail responding to their mail saying I'd rather have a mail in ballot then going to route but that's not what the governor chose to do here is get that step Dillon says by not seeking the consent of the state legislature he's violating the constitution the groups also claimed this could lead to possible election fraud Loyola law professor Jessica Levinson says she's not sure the legal argument will hold up that is their legal challenge here saying that governor Newsom lacked the emergency powers to institute this executive order to say that we're going to change the system so instead of having to request a vote by mail ballot you'll just automatically get one the governor's office issued a statement saying they'll continue to defend California's right to vote in a safe and secure
Wisconsin governor suspends in-person voting for primary
"Brand well because of current virus Wisconsin governor Tony Evers has suspended in person voting in tomorrow's presidential primary he's a Democrat and his order comes after nearly a week of back and forth with Republicans in the state legislature there they rejected a request from the governor to postpone the primary like other states have meanwhile the Supreme Court is weighing a lower court judge's order to extend Wisconsin's deadline to submit absentee ballots Jessica Levinson is here to talk about all this with us she's a law professor at Loyola law school in a regular legal legal hello hello well let's begin with even order it postpones in person voting and he did that unilaterally does he have the authority to do that I'm gonna give you everybody's least favorite law professor answer we're not sure and I actually think we're gonna be saying that a lot over the next few months I mean there's going to be a big issue of trying to secure elections and protect elections in the time of a global pandemic and so does the governor have the power to unilaterally change the election date spent a lot of I've been back in Wisconsin about that I hate to say it but we'll know when a judge rules on whether or not that's permissible right and Republicans have resisted that why have they resisted postponing in person voting right so there's no question that legally speaking if the Republican controlled legislature had decided that yes we will postpone the date of the election that that would have been permissible that they as a state as the representatives of the state could have done that what they've said is that we can't postpone for a couple reasons one they said it's not just the presidential primary that's on the ballot it's also a lot of state and local races and we don't want those to stand vacant now Inc in the governor's executive order he said they don't have to stand vacant I'm just going to extend the terms of the state and local officials what the Republicans have also said is that they don't want this huge change an influx of vote by mail because they're worried about issues of fraud and essentially that the election would lack integrity I think all of us frankly the studies on that indicate that those aren't real fears that we don't have to worry about voter fraud date what's much a much bigger worry is making sure that everybody who wants to vote actually camp out right and so along those lines there's also this dispute over absentee ballots a federal judge extended the deadline in Wisconsin and that was upheld by the federal by a federal appeals court but now the Republicans have appealed to the US Supreme Court what's going on there with the absentee ballot dispute yeah what's going on there is there's two parallel tracks one there's a legal track that we were just talking about which is this argument by Republican lawmakers that it really infringes on the integrity of the election to do things like increase vote by mail or route increase the amount of time that you would have to return your ballot and that's kind of the legal argument that's going up and back the second track is really a political one where for Democrats it's better if there's more time if more people show up for Republicans it's really a big game if we don't count those vote by mail if we don't extend the time there's a really big judicial action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Republicans have I believe the reporting is openly said you know it might have been actually better to have the selection when it's a lower turnout so we're sure we can keep that particular seat this is really a preview of I think a lot of what we might see in the fall these parallel tract arguments on the one hand legal on the other hand political okay let's turn to another story in the news right now in the midst of this huge pandemic at least six conservative states of trying to restrict access to abortion a federal District Court judges blocks nearly all of those orders but not in Texas the fifth circuit court of appeals left aligned Texas go into a fact on a temporary basis so I know a lot of states are saying no to elective medical procedures right now but there seems to be at a time difference here rate when it comes to having an abortion is not considered an elective procedure but not by the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists in so it's gonna feel like deja vu all over again from about forty five seconds ago but what we're seeing in this case is also two different arguments one is the legal argument of whether or not you can basically prohibit and or postpone these abortions the other is really the political argument a lot of Republican controlled states trying to restrict access to an abortion so you know to your question is this really an elective procedure no it really my understanding is medically is not considered an elective procedure and of course there is a much different timeline when it comes to an abortion at a certain point out you've waited so long that it might be for instance illegal under the state's loss to happen abortion in so this brings up again this kind of Wu Ming fight at the Supreme Court at some point we'll have to take up about the contours of abortion rights what grounds on what grounds did the court of appeals let the Texas law go into effect yes so what the Texas court said and as you said this was really an out liar decision every other federal court that's taken the sap has said no you can't implement these types of prohibitions or restrictions Texas court said as the state has the power to do that looking at the states broad police powers to do things like limit the number of elective procedures you have to do other things like we talk about all the time like closing restaurants cook closing schools that it would fall within that power so I think the conservative fifth circuit really kind of went out on a limb and frankly I don't think the ruling is consistent with the current standard they Casey versus Planned Parenthood distinct standard so do you think the Supreme Court will take this one up when it convenes at when and if it reconvenes physically and or virtually it you know it depends on how long this particular prohibition is in place but I think it's gonna be really hard for the court to avoid this they may try and issue some very short opinion which basically says this isn't consistent with our current standard and then wait for a bigger case to come before them to really make the decision about whether or not states can essentially say there's an emergency exception to the current standard that there's an emergency
Eye Opener: Trump pardons disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
"Former Illinois governor rod Blagojevich is waking up at home a day after president trump commuted is fourteen year prison sentence for trying to sell Barack Obama's former Senate seat I can't Mr trump pardon the former junk bond king an X. and Y. P. D. commissioner friend of Rudy Giuliani's and the former owner of the forty Niners Loyola University law professor Jessica Levinson I think this bodes very well for people like man afford stone in full and I think they're looking at the present he's using his partner thorny very broadly he has extremely broad discretion to use that authority he's absolutely exercising it
Barr faces "crisis of confidence" inside Department of Justice
"Today a group of federal judges held an emergency meeting to discuss Attorney General bill bars actions in a couple of high profile political cases cases involving Roger stone and Michael Flynn and on Sunday some twelve two thousand former federal prosecutors and DOJ officials released an open letter demanding that bar step down they admit that that's unlikely and so they're urging their colleagues in the justice department to report any suspected wrongdoing to the inspector general Jessica Levinson's here to talk about this crisis of confidence in the justice department she's a law professor at Loyola law school and a regular legal legal welcome hello well even though bill Barr complained about trump's tweeting he still added just today he tweeted that Roger stone deserves a new trial and that he might sue the people who prosecuted him how can he sue federal prosecutors this is such a weird law school hypothetical I mean I saw that and I thought wow this brings up so many issues let's start at the beginning which is this is not something we typically talk about this is I know this is an over used word but this really is unprecedented to think of a part of the federal government suing another part of the in federal government I think the short answer is this is unlikely to happen it's just a threat I think the longer answer is you have to look at how the federal government is structured how there's different divisions of the government and there's some independence between them but it would be really just in terms of constitutional design statutory framework and lack of any cause of action would be really challenging for the president to do sue these prosecutors I think this thread is more about the threat than an actual legal case right and so why would he keep tweeting about this after bar himself said stop doing this this is interfering with his ability to run the department well one I think the president has shown himself over the years to be an avid tweeter and stopping really for no one and no advice so I'm don't think that the fact that the Attorney General said this is making my job harder really moves the president into silence the other thing I would say about that and public disclosure by Attorney General Barr saying you know these tweets make it harder for me and kind of company putting its thumb on the scale and saying I wish the present when do that in a way it gives him some cover and he can say look I'm a crow I'm still a credible person I'm still who you thought I was going to be before I took this job and see I've openly criticize the president so I think actually that public criticism might give him a little more room to frankly do what he was already doing which is make decisions that are favorable for the present United States well let's talk a little bit more about the stone case he's asking for a re trial and someone who identified herself as the jury forewoman of said she can't stay silent anymore she said this on Facebook and she expressed support for the prosecutors who resigned on math last week after bill bar over turned their sentencing recommendation I her name is to make a hard on she was a one time congressional kept the candidate democratic congressional candidate and Tennessee so is this case complicated by her admission and her democratic party affiliation only politically speaking so if you think about members of the jury chances are really high almost everybody is going to have a political affiliation I mean the assumption behind the criticism of her is it your political affiliation is the most important thing you have when it comes to you viewing a legal case particularly political charge legal case so I do think it's important for us to take issue with that it's not always the case that Republicans will vote a certain way or Democrats with another way more to the point this is something that would have been revealed on a jury questionnaire a lot of your listeners are probably gone through jury service they go through a process of why dear they have to reveal where they work who they live with a lot of information there asked if they can do an impartial job if they can apply the facts to the law the fact that she saying I'm frustrated after the jury has already rendered its verdict I don't think undermines its verdict it certainly gives everyone have a political headache but she's not saying I wasn't able to impartially do justice I wasn't able to apply the facts of this case the law right so the judge says the sentencing will go ahead as planned on Thursday given everything that's happened what are you going to be looking for in the sentencing well I think I'm looking for what everybody else is looking for which is which range of that sentence will she be giving down so federal judges have enormous discretion she can decide to high fiber understand if she wants to she is not going to do that she can decide to give him a very heavy sentence I think the question will be will she do something within the original request by the federal prosecutors which was I believe seven to nine years or will she do something closer to what I was the second request by the federal prosecutor something much more lenient I think judge Jackson has that shown as much impartiality she possibly can and my guess is she's going to do something that is out well within the suggested guidelines okay so there's this group of federal judges holding an emergency meeting on this and fertile has that ever happened before not that I'm aware of federal judges tend to not like to do this type of thing they're small see conservative and I know we use this word before but it really is unprecedented to have a group of federal judges say there's something so important there something we're so worried about the we can't wait to our next conference because they do have regular conference but we don't know exactly what they discussed or what they talked about what could they possibly do besides wring their hands well I I think that's getting they'll wring their hands the wash their hands they'll they'll do some jazz hands no federal judges would never do that so you know I think frankly the act of calling the meeting itself is perhaps even more significant than whatever would come out of the meeting the fact that this is a association voluntary association of judges who are dedicated to the independence of independence of the judiciary to public and educational outreach explaining to people what judges do the fact that they're so alarmed in and of itself is useful what could they do they can do more educational outreach they don't want to get too involved in any of the politics of this for the reason that they're all lifetime appointees this is a group of all article three judges and the whole purpose behind lifetime appointment is that they stay out of politics so I would look to them to do something that looks like it's about education about out reach about explaining what they do and why it's important that they're independent alright and then you've got these former justice department officials many of them former prosecutors who served in both Republican and democratic administrations signing this letter calling on bar to resign and then they had met in the letter that is how not gonna do that but what kind of pressure could this letter put on bar well my guess is frankly not that much because I don't think that he's someone who susceptible to this type of pressure if we sorry what Attorney General Barr has done you beginning with the Muller report where he came out very quickly with his own summary summary that was in fact question by Robert Muller himself where we've seen what he's done and sad about the Michael Flynn case to Roger stone case I don't think he's someone who feels particularly awkward about this it is important that all these former federal prosecutors career attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service have decided to come out on the record and say they're something that troubles us about the independence of the department of justice about the actions the Attorney General still is important to go on record about these
What Happens When A President Is Impeached?
"My name is evey. Im seven years. Old I live in Downers Grove Illinois. I my question is what happens when presidents get impeached. Have you been hearing about impeachment. It's been in the news because the US President Donald Trump trump has been impeached. And there's been a lot of news and conversation about whether he did something so bad that he should no longer be the US president as we're putting this this podcast episode out the trial to decide that is still going on. We thought you might appreciate having a little bit. More of an understanding of what impeachment actually is is how it works and when it has happened before in. US history so we called up. Jessica Levinson to help us with this. She's a professor or a teacher. Sure of law at Loyola Law School in California so she teaches people how to become lawyers. She also focuses on politics and government in her work so she looks at the rules around elections and she looks at government ethics. How people should behave in government so she really knows what's going on when it comes to impeachment? Here's Eve these question again. What happens when presidents get impeached? So impeachment is basically a way of removing one of our leaders in government. We have a couple of ways to remove people from their jobs so they don't get to keep doing what they already do and one of them is through elections and we can choose to vote somebody out of their current position. We can choose to say you. Don't get to keep your job. Somebody else's going to do your job now and we could also also decide to use a process called impeachment which means that people will basically decide. You did something. That is really bad in really problematic attic and that it's so bad that we might have to remove you from your job Before the next vote before the next election and so so. That's that's basically. What impeachment is a way so that people don't get to keep doing their job because they did something pretty? Bad impeachment is a process that was written into into our Constitution. The constitution is the document that was created to lay out the fundamental rules of what the United States was going to be. Here's our other guests to help explain lane the history. I am candidacy Davis. The author of don't know much about history. Impeachment is simply a term that was adopted by the men who drafted and wrote the United States constitution in seventeen eighty seven and the word comes from an old English term for how to remove an official if he somehow did something that was wrong. Corrupt criminal unethical ethical or some other form of needing to be removed. And so this was an idea that was important to the founders of with the country because they were getting a great deal of power to one man in particular the president does they finally decided on it as well as other federal officials and is important to remember. That impeachment isn't only for president. It's also for other high-ranking federal officials officials who might have to be removed from office including federal judges because our presidential elections only happen every four years the men who wrote the US Constitution thought there needed to be away to remove the president in between elections. If he had done something so wrong that he shouldn't be president anymore even before for an election happened. And I'm saying he here instead of he and she or her because back in the seventeen hundreds the founders couldn't imagine that a president or a judge judge or a person in that kind of power would be a woman one of the most important things about a democracy where the people choose their leaders is just that that the people choose so it needs to be a really big deal for a president to be removed from office by other elected officials instead of by the voters in an the election so the writers of the Constitution created rules around win and how a president can be impeached. The House of Representatives can bring bring charges against the president when they think he has done something wrong if a majority more than half of the members of the house votes to bring those charges to trial then a president has been impeached. That has happened three times so far in. US history and that's what happened to the current president. Donald Trump Andrew through Johnson in eighteen sixty eight was the first president to be impeached. The second one was Bill Clinton in nineteen ninety eight so it was more than a hundred thirty years between the first two impeachments Bill Clinton Andrew. Johnson were not removed from office now. There was one other career impeachment in that time. Richard M Nixon who was the president elected in nineteen sixty eight resigned from the office in Nineteen eighteen seventy four because he was going to be impeached and it was quite certain that he was going to be removed from office because of what he had done. In what we now know as Watergate so impeachment is pretty rare but it also might be a little confusing because being impeached. Doesn't doesn't mean that you're no longer. The president. Being impeached is kind of like being accused of doing something wrong. Here's how Jessica Levinson describes it just because because that first group of people the House of Representatives decides to impeach you nothing actually happens to president it might be that it's really embarrassing Maybe the people who don't like what happened. Use this against you. Think about something that happens at school where somebody does something. Like take a marker that wasn't theirs if the teacher tells the whole class look at this person they took the marker that's really bad that's kind of like impeachment if nothing thing happens other than the teacher just saying that's really bad but it's really what happens next which is called a trial in the Senate where you might be able to lose your job. The trial in the Senate is kind of like if the teacher says. That's so bad that you don't get to use markers for the rest of the day and so there's this consequences to that so it's up to the Senate to hold a trial and if enough of them. Two thirds agree that the president should be removed only then then what a president have to step down and that has so far never happened in. US history
U.S. Supreme Court takes up presidential Electoral College dispute
"Ahead of the presidential election the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a dispute involving the electoral college system Jessica Levinson is a professor at Loyola law school she says it's very hard to say especially this point which way the court will be going my gas is that this will be a close call particularly when you see circuits are divided when you see divided decisions I think that we could see a five to four decision I'm just not sure which way it goes I think John Roberts will be very aware of the political implications to be more specific the court will be taking of appeals in two cases from Washington state and Colorado involving electors who decided to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton is a twenty sixteen elections even though she won the popular vote in those states are so called faithless
How Trump has reshaped the federal judiciary
"Eight president trump in the Republican Party have been amazingly efficient and placing judges in the federal judiciary sisters one comparison so far trump has appointed one hundred eighty seven judges by the same point in his presidency Obama had appointed only twenty five and only fifty five by the end of his second term Jessica Levinson's a professor at Loyola law school she was asked how trump has been able to get so many judges confirmed so quickly well obviously the leader in the Senate made their top priority and he said throughout the campaign this is going to be something we have accomplished and they have accomplished this with the Kuwaitis are light hocus it's hard to overestimate how efficient they have fanned out nominating and confirming federal judges so I will cans were frankly better about this than Republicans in the twenty sixteen election he made the selection issue they are not with the federalist society a conservative group that helps you create a high point for federal judges and they have been in normatively affection nominating please yeah judges very conservative judges and giving them a call because we have the political will in the numbers Levinson says it's a little too early to know the full impact of the appointments but we have seen in some senses already what's happening if you look at this circuit and the sixth circuit rulings regarding abortion rights you can see that president trump's nominees are present have appointments been very conservative very pro life if you look at the Supreme Court of course as you mentioned there's two members of the Supreme Court president trump you will get a big decision for instance the travel ban decision like the decision and the fans who came to the decision we have coming up for instance in Dhaka immigration decisions with respect to abortion religious we're going to you as soon as you hear the next year the judicial appointments by president trump our
7 Democratic Candidates To Debate At Loyola Marymount University Tonight
"Seven democratic presidential candidates are prepared to take part in the latest debate tonight on the campus of Loyola Marymount university only Joe Biden Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren Andrea and Tom star in the culture and Pete but a judge qualified for the debate political analysts Jessica Levinson a loyal law school is going to be at LMU tonight and she he says frankly they line up Stoppard of ours it is still the case there are candidates in our elected officials do not represent the American electorate they don't represent them in terms of racial diversity socioeconomic diversity diversity of experience one of the candles who did not qualify for the debates Cory Booker he released a television ad that will run during the about how long with these things thirty thirty seconds control we can afford
Supreme Court to hear 3 cases involving Trump's finances
"Other Supreme Court action and the court has agreed to take up a major case about president trump's tax returns at issue whether the president can block Congress and state prosecutors from getting those financial records sets up what's likely to be a landmark ruling on the powers of the presidency and a test of the courts independence it's Monday so that means one thing I believe illegal is in the house Jessica Levinson law professor at Loyola law school hi that's the only thing Monday me means to me the best thing about Monday okay SO three subpoenas at the heart of this case to from Congress one from the Manhattan DA what are they about so they're all about somewhat similar but different things essentially they're asking for information regarding for instance the hush money payments that were made to stormy Daniels and to Karen McDougal to not talk about the fact that they allegedly had affairs with president trump they're also asking for information regarding whether or not there is any money laundering related to Russian interference with the presidential elections so there is again this one request by Cyrus Vance the New York district attorney essentially he's trying to access cute a subpoena that came from a grand jury saying we want this financial information from you and then there's two cases dealing with congressional committees who are saying we want various types of financial information from you president trump because we're looking at things like whether or not you might have committed banking or tax fraud whether or not we need new ethics rules in place and so we need that information to make those determinations so these are all separate cases but they're all rolled up into one decision possibly possibly so I actually think that there's a decent chance that the court will take these kind of piece by piece and that we might see a patchwork decision in part because it's going to be a hard to get consensus I think come these cases in part because they actually do raise somewhat different questions to the New York case obviously deals with state criminal proceedings that's a little bit different from congressional oversight which brings up separation of powers issue how interesting okay so in the New York case they're seeking I think Cyrus Vance's seeking eight years of business and personal tax records so a lot of information is the trump administration arguing while you can get this information now because he's the president they are they're making this really broad argument that the sitting president United States is always constitutionally immune from not just being let's say indicted by federal prosecutors are state prosecutors but investigated and so the judge in this in these oral arguments said to president trump's representative essentially do you mean that if the president shoot someone in the middle of New York we can't investigate and he said right there constitutionally immune and that really did drop breaths in oral argument and this is one of these cases where you have to think not do you want president trump to be able to claim this constitutional immunity but do you want every other president to say not that you can't indict me but you can't even look in to me and I think that this is a case where we might see actually more consensus by the Supreme Court we could see something closer to you in eight one decision let's say where is for the congressional cases that this over arching case brings up I think you could see more division and it's worth noting that the lower courts have sided with Vance in this case and with Congress so for all of the three separate decisions the lower court the federal district judges and then the court of appeals have all cited with either the prosecutors or Congress so president trump has lost repeatedly in everyone of these cases but we've seen this happen before we sought for instance with respect to the travel ban we're seeing we thought a little bit with respect to the census that was a difficult decision by the Supreme Court but where there's universal losses on the lower court level and then something different happens on sprint car so what what about the other two with the house oversight and house financial services and intelligence committees there so they're the ones who are asking for these other records to possibly look into possible money laundering what is the argument there so from the trump administration so the argument from the trump administration is essentially you don't have a legitimate legislative purpose for asking for this for your dishing expedition right you're just on a partisan which are so if there's pending legislation and you want to try and get information for that legislation then okay but if you're just casting about trying to essentially throw this versions of bomb the sitting president then that's not okay now it's important to actually remember when we talk about congressional oversight one it's not actually something that's in the constitution we just understand that it's a constitutional power but also Congress has actually brought authorities so they don't have to just say there is legislation pending Congress also for instance has the power of the purse so if they're being asked to appropriate money they can look into whether or not that's a good decision to appropriate that money so arguably the president saying you don't have a good legislative purpose is maybe even a bit too narrow an argument of course this is all coming down against the backdrop of impeachment and so how is that figuring into the supreme court's I don't know not necessarily decision with the decision isn't expected till June but its calculation when I hear these arguments well so those are two totally separate tracks and I tied it to talk to my students about this in the sense that what's happening in the courts is in fact different from what's happening in the house or what's happening in the Senate chambers now of course it's not totally separate in the sense that impeachment is can grass it's the ultimate congressional oversight so impeachment is Congress looking at the present United States but for impeachment we know Congress has a good reason they don't need a legitimate legislative purpose for impeachment it's in the constitution it says Congress has the sole power to impeach the president in so it yes it's all overlapping because it deals with you essentially president trump and whether or not he engaging problematic behavior but it's separate because impeachment is very narrowly just on this issue of what happened with respect to president trump and presents Lewinski of the
Trump says he wants to sue Schiff and doesn't care if he loses
"Congress is back in session in Washington DC and the fight between house Democrats and president trump over there impeachment inquiry is heating up over the weekend president trump threatened to sue to democratic representatives from California house speaker Nancy Pelosi and intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff but he might not be legally able to do that according to Loyola law school professor Jessica Levinson in the U. S. constitution it says something called the speech and debate clause which essentially gives immunity to things that members of Congress say either on the house floor of the Senate floor or in committee and as far as trump second threat to impeach the representatives road block number two you can't actually impeach a member of Congress hello see initiative are of course spearheading the impeachment inquiry of president trump trump has said he wanted to sue ship the hitting a law saying quote the American public will
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KCRW
"Every Monday she's here to break down the legal stories dominated I'm barbel gave our legal eagle Jessica Levinson on the latest from the Supreme Court and issues raised by the impeachment inquiry that's Monday at noon on press play here in case your W. you have so bom bom bom.
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KCRW
"Legal legal Jessica Levinson today at noon on press play on KCRW and seen some and I can still see a scan I was in the the screen it's Tom and see the the main house and thanks no need to send come and it's the only time.
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KCRW
"Legal legal Jessica Levinson today at noon on press play on KCRW sure sure the get some places Hey baby just you mean next to you I mean yeah so what just yeah we create.
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KCRW
"School professor Jessica Levinson is an expert on the constitution the first amendment protects your right to speak but also protects your right not to speak every Monday she's here to break down the legal stories dominating the news there's a reason that none of us and talked about the but you can't indict a president clause of the constitution I'm metal and brand our legal legal Jessica Levinson Monday at noon on press play on KCRW name is and the the yeah the Hey wake up you so yeah in between Mexican rockers so a and Radiohead front man Thom Yorke your with KCRW yeah.
Judge blocks DOJ move to change lawyers in 2020 census case
"A federal judge in New York has blocked the trump administration for making a surprise swap out of its legal team and the controversial census case despite a recent Supreme Court ruling blocking the move the department of justice is still working to add a citizenship question on the twenty twenty census but earlier this week it announced it was replacing the team of lawyers arguing to do just that in cases across the country the judge in New York said that each member of the team looking to withdraw will have to sign a sworn statement with a satisfactory reason why Alex mound ABC news Washington it's probably not the end of it though Loyola law school professor Jessica Levinson believes the trump team will fight on my guess is for a long time because this isn't really about the law anymore it's about a political way and I think that for the trump administration I think many people probably know there is not a legal path forward but for president trump's base this is a very popular question and the longer it dominates the news the longer he's winning that new cycle the census bureau has begun printing next year's forms without the citizenship
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KCRW
"Metal joins us with a preview right well okay we're gonna lead the show with just this really appalling story of the conditions that these migrant children are in in some of these detention facilities he probably heard about it about this overcrowding and how these kids are being denied this basic basic amenities toothbrushes so to themselves deo see has compared suu concentration and doctor who saw it said it was like torture center i mean these really terrible conditions the president trying to you know out on the talk shows yesterday with pants as well basically saying well this not our fall we've requested us money and the democrats are holding it up the funding for the money so we're going to get to the bottom of that and figure out what the deal is with the funding for this and why these conditions if it is indeed a question of funding or to just incompetence or worse on the part of the administration so we will talk about that with a variety of people including a lawyer who has visited one of these detention centers and has witnessed firsthand these conditions we're going to talk to jessica levinson to get her analysis as well Illegal eagle swooping in. She does Monday. here in her nest nessa so we will talk about all of that at the top of the show and then we'll have some lighter fare on the other half and our very own eric j lawrence will be with us fix yes he's going to music pick some really interesting picks because he just finished his master's dissertation and he was listening to some really interesting music as he was completing that degree and so he'll share that all right you need to finish your masters L the legal.
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KCRW
"Our legal eagle. Jessica Levinson Monday at one on press play on KCRW. If you. We have. There is. We all can go with..
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KCRW
"Legal eagle. Jessica Levinson today at one on press play on KCRW. Sunshine..
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KGO 810
"Although here since it's hatch hatch e. Yeah. You have to filter it. It's good stuff. Roger stone was indicted, the president we're going to get to the bites. The craziest water ever at the warehouse. It's the big list. The greatest water you've ever had in this bottle by President Trump. Announce. We are going to dig into should the president not speak. We will be in just a few minutes talking to Loyola Law School. Professor Jessica Levinson regarding this Roger stone indictment this morning. Close confidante. President Trump's for many decades now decades stone and Trump again, you gotta watch get me Roger stone on Netflix. But we have an empty lectern with the greatest water in the history of the universe. Ever sitting in a glass? We're now getting word that they might be moving. The this press conference to eleven thirty where it is not confirmed yet. So we are waiting to find out why the president is not act the lectern if he comes. We will carry it live, otherwise we'll be talking to Loyola Law School. Professor Jessica Levinson regarding the Roger stone indictment four one five eight hundred eighty eight ten. Ethan Bearman on K G L A ten ten fifty six Keijo. Good morning. I'm Brett burkhart with a look at what we're following for the K geo newsroom. Roger stone becomes the stakes. Trump associate charged in the Russia investigation..
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KGO 810
"Eight ten four one five eight zero eight zero eight one zero and well, President Obama just finished his speech, and Illinois, the cavenaugh hearings continued judge Brad Kavanagh is the nominee to be on the supreme court in the confirmation hearings are underway to help us understand all of this professor of law election law governance issues, campaign, finance it cetera Commissioner on the LA ethics commission as well. Professor. Jessica levinson. Jessica thank you so much for coming on today. Having me always I can we want to just step back for a half a second to help make sure that we all understand why we even have these Senate hearings. When Brad Kavanagh is the president's nominee to be the next supreme court Justice. Why do we go through this series of theatrics? Well, you know, you described it. Exactly, right. But under the constitution, we require that the Senate advise and consent when it comes to these nominees. And so the idea is that the Senate has an actual inquiry is able to talk to the Justice who are the future. Justice to again is facing a lifetime appointment Azima series of question and really decide whether or not they're going to vote the nominee out of committee. And then I was full four. You know, as you said an introduction. That's not what happened said we have feeder. So everybody on the right side of the island on the left side. I'll is engaging in essentially, a stump speech and bread taverna for him. The name of the game is to admit only to essentially his name his age and the name of his wife and his kids. Which is what's so frustrating now to observe this. Professor Jessica Levinson's joining me on the phone. Why does why what happened here? Why do they refuse to answer like anything anymore about cases? Is there is there a reason why they just void like even today? It came up again. I believe it was Senator Booker said would you recuse yourself if a question about the money, you're being nominated by this president would you recuse yourself, and he he's I refuse to answer that I won't answer. Why do they continue to not answer questions? Well, I mean for a couple of reasons the main reason is there's just nothing to win from revealing anything because it's not like the sun is going to reject them because they haven't been forthcoming also. Because as I'm sure, you know, when president Ronald Reagan nominated a man named Robert Bork. He went to the Senate confirmation hearings an answer number of questions. Very honestly, people were absolutely terrified and essentially torpedoed his nomination and so ever since certainly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the name of the game for nominees has been to say some version of Senator thank you so much for that fantastic question. I have absolutely no plan of responding to it for these very lengthy reasons, and I'm gonna talk so long that I hope that ultimately everyone forgets the question. And the fact that I have an answer. Which is which is kinda sad because and and let's be blunt about this professor Levinson. We have huge groups now, and there's a big body of work with people like judge cavenaugh. We know where he stands on most issues that doesn't mean we fully know, very specific set of facts how he'll rule on certain things. But we have a really good idea of where he stands in. The federalist society has made sure that we know this. And this is the deep irony of the nomination process, which is before a nominee is neat. We have the president and the president's advisors assuring everyone don't worry I have a litmus test. The next nominee is going to look just like and fill in the blank, you know. Maybe it's just the school is just going to be a very conservative pick. And then the second we named that person. We say, you know, what they really don't have any views on anything. They're blank slate. They're gonna take every cases it comes and apply. The fast the law. And so I am fortunately this farce. I mean as much as we're kind of making light of it in a sense. The losers are really the American public because if nominee is good to go before the Senate Judiciary committee and essentially admit to none of their bills. And so with judge what we have because he is the judge on the DC court of appeals. We have a long record of judicial. And we know where he stands. Think on a number of important issues. Not just because President Trump has essentially assured all that she would never nominate anyone who doesn't hold us. And that's what's so interesting in all of this is we get this. And I I want to spend a moment with you, professor. Jessica Jessica Levinson is on the phone with me. She's a professor of law Loyola Law School Commissioner on the A ethics commission among many other things, and you see you're all over media right now and have been for a while. But professor lemon what I have been arguing on the air is that this is in my mind as his swing vote replacement of Justice Kennedy will shift the court from voting five four on a number of things like Casey Roe v. Wade things like LGBTQ rights expanding the expanding the interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four in gender and gender orientation, which split in the circuits right now, he's going to dramatically change the face of the court. And I keep saying that this. Kind of in its own way brings us back to the Lochner era in terms of a dramatic and extreme change in the court. And that's why the left for as much as we can call it. Theatrics. That's why they are making such a big deal of it. Even if they can't stop his confirmation. Well, I think that's exactly right. So the what's amazing to say is that the new swing vote on the supreme court is going to be chief Justice John Roberts. That's amazing one because we haven't had the chief Justice as a swing vote in eighty years but second because John Roberts is nobody's moderate jurist is a conservative jurists that might really you it might terrify you. But if so I think that Justice Kennedy leaving really affects two big areas and the first area are all of the cases where she broke and voted with liberals, and so it became a five to four liberal deficient. And so, of course, everybody's thinking about abortion rights. Affirmative action the death penalty and. And, you know, some issues related to voting rights, but what Justice Kennedy also did is. I think he often told the court back from bigger and bolder decisions if we think about the masterpiece cake shop decision last year where we thought we were going to hear about who wins between maker who says it's against my religion to make a cake for same sex couple and the same sex couple who say I don't want to be discriminated again in Justice Kennedy, and a number of teams last term, basically pulled the court back said we're gonna issue really narrow decision that's not going to be the case anymore. And so people are fighting like it, really matters. Because it really really matters. This is the supreme court for the next few decades. So professor Jessica Levinson from Loyola Law schools joining me on the front row tech. Will you spend moment and help explain though there are there are kind of two major schools of thought of how you read cases why we have conservative and liberal because they're not necessarily the. The same as the political considerations of conservative and liberal. We're talking about interpreting statutes the constitution, how they played a facts and law etc of liberal versus conservative, which which sometimes a line and sometimes don't with political convention. Why is this such a big deal when we talk about a conservative court versus a liberal court. Well, conservative court. I mean, you know, in what you said I felt kind of mix so way to serve it is judicial philosophy should be completely separate and apart from conservative political thought or ideology, and in personally what we've seen over the last number of years is that the. Party from which the nominee comes in the eventual supreme court Justice in a lot of ways will dictate how they vote on the call big hot, but n- issues. So the divide in the court really supposedly between conservatives who are so called strict construction-wise originalist, and that means they look at the text of the constitution at the time. And they decide. What would the framers intended? What would the drafters of intended? And then the liberal supposedly the difference is that they're looking at the constitution of a living document. And so for instance, when it comes to the second amendment I amendment or any number of different positions. What they're really doing is saying how should we look at those phrases now in modern times? But unfortunately, that, you know, buried beautiful legal distinction really breaks down when you look at a lot of the cases and look at how the justices voting it. There is something to the criticism. That justices looked like politicians and robes, and so again for people who care about, you know, a lot of people don't wake up every morning thinking about the supreme court, but they do think that things they care about like immigration rights environmental controls privacy rights, meaning reproductive rights. Affirmative action racial discrimination, all these issues, and those are issues that the supreme court is now likely decide any different way than it would. Six months ago. One last question for you. Professor, Jessica Levinson. Thank you for all of your explanation and expertise on this. What are what are their rules are guidance for judges when they recused themselves because I really am hung up on this idea that Cavanaugh refuses to commit to recusing himself to any case that relates to the sitting president who is nominating him. And then we also now find out that Trump has directly refused to cooperate with Muller in any way, shape or form. Now, I see a connection between those. So what is the rule for judges to recuse themselves from cases if any? Well, the rule is different depending on what type of judge you are. So for every other federal judge other than for the supreme court. Here's a mandatory judicial code of ethics that you have to abide by and it essentially told you when you need to recuse herself only the supreme court judicial code of ethics is permissive adjusted because there's basically no one to review them. And so that's one thing to consider which is green court justices are subject only really to the pressure of their colleagues in terms of whether or not they will recuse themselves. But the other thing to consider is I don't really like the president of the idea that you can't make a decision based on the president who appointed you. I mean, I think we need to be more circumspect about exactly what we want Bret Kavanagh to recuse himself for essentially things that might land the president in jail for in the closer to the epicenter of the criminal investigation. By Robert Muller. And, you know, of course, Robert excuse me, Brad Kavanagh is following his script as every other nominee, regardless of whether they're democrat or Republican does and says, you know, that's something that could come before the court, and I can't answer. Again. The losers earn. Fortunately, the American public who really don't get any new information about these very powerful people such such great insight. I I can't thank you enough for your time as always please follow her on Twitter as well at Levinson. Jessica Jessica Levinson, professor at Loyola Law.
"jessica levinson" Discussed on WCBS Newsradio 880
"The lawyer for former, President Trump personal attorney, Michael Cohen says the president should face. Criminal charges for directing him to do all the dirty fessed up to in court Tuesday A jury fine former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort guilty on most of the tax evasion counts deadlocked on, most of the Bank fraud counts mistrial declared. On those Facebook posted word it. Took down over six hundred and fifty pages linked to Russia and Iran ahead. Of this November midterm election President Trump he was at a campaign rally. Tonight in. West Virginia where he mentioned the. Illegal immigrant from Mexico charged with murdering a university of Iowa. Student sports Yankees Marlins they are still tied at one they're in the. Top of the eleventh right now met stay beat, the giants six. To three right now seventy three degrees in. Central park on Tuesday August twenty I thank you for tuning in I'm leave on Putney WCBS news time is ten thirty one CBS news. Special report former Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen demonstrated today that he is no longer, willing to take a. Bullet for President Trump appearing in. Manhattan federal court to, plead guilty to tax evasion and a campaign finance violation he said then candidate Trump directed into pay hush money to to women in order. To influence the election loyal law school professor Jessica Levinson Michael Cohen's admission that he paid off these two, women, in order. To chat to try and how the Trump campaign and that he did so at the direction of it says a, candidate but we all know that that means. President Trump is hugely problematic because. What he's basically saying is I entered into a conspiracy with candidate Trump who. Sow the president of the, United States to violate federal law and today. Trump campaign. Chairman Paul Manafort was convicted of. Eight financial fraud charges CBS news special report I'm Pam Coulter In the tax evasion and Bank. Fraud trial of former Trump. Campaign chairman Paul Manafort just mentioned a guilty verdict on eight of the, eighteen charges, mostly the tax. Evasion related charges with jurors deadlocked on the other ten and the justices declared a mistrial on those charges.
"jessica levinson" Discussed on WBBM Newsradio
"Sports this is Rick Greg guaranteed rate field where Minnesota leads. The White Sox to one and Troy beat the cubs to one tonight. WBZ in business the Dow closed up today sixty three points NASDAQ up thirty eight SNP up six, points, at two thousand eight. Sixty to seventy one degrees right now at the lakefront CBS, news, is, next CBS news special. Report former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, demonstrated, today that he is no. Longer willing to take a bullet for President Trump. Appearing in Manhattan federal court to plead guilty to tax evasion and a campaign finance violation he said. Then candidate Trump directed him to pay hush money to to women in. Order to influence the election loyal law school professor Jessica Levinson Michael Cohen's admission. That he paid off these two women in order to try and how the Trump campaign and that he did so at the direction of it says a candidate but we all know that. That means President. Trump is hugely problematic because what he's basically saying I entered into a conspiracy with candidate Trump who's now the. President of the. United States to violate federal law and today Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted of eight financial fraud charges CBS news special report I'm Pam Coulter WBZ news time nine thirty to the father of a seventeen, month old Illinois, girl Found dead under a, couch. Is now suing the girl's mother and a DCFS contractor so Magget Crosby was reported missing in April two thousand seventeen in two days later found dead in her mother's, home j. Jerry Tanny the attorney for Simancas father James Crosby says the. DCFS contractor children's home and aid should not have allowed Somalia to remain in. The home until you have cases which impact these companies, were not, going to change and what Mr. Crosby says is to effectively change so the last case I tried we wanna Ford five hundred. Dollars versus I don't expect this case be anything. Less than that if the facts PU out as we think they will be attorney I am on Jay's mother who's based in Joliet township and a spokesman for children's home and aid both declined to comment. On the lawsuit a brand, new ER has opened at Swedish covenant hospital as. Part of a twelve. Million dollar renovation project clinical director Kimberly Leslie says the two year project also added more, triage rooms Hey. Vural health rooms and a new sexual assault rooms. A shower and hair there's some, privacy it's off, the main hallway she can stay in here the whole time if law enforcement. Needs to come talk to her there's some privacy without others watching, where one of the first hospitals in the area to have this and it was designed as such. Original part of emergency department dates to. The nineteen seventies and the department was last expanded in two thousand six the hospital has one of the busiest ers, in. The city and sees about fifty four thousand patients a year President, Trump is accusing New York's mayor of ripping off his rhetoric I don't vet yesterday Bill de Blasios stood next to a sign reading promises made. Promises kept the president noticed tweeting de Blasios just stole my campaign slogan that's not at all nice no imagination De Blasios the, democratic mayor of the president's hometown replied the differences that I'm not lying what I say, it the slogan, is not new others have. Used it including Republican John Engler when he won election as Michigan's governor twenty four years ago saga megani at. The White House two toddlers in south Arkansas survived for two days after the car they were in crashed killing their mother a watchtower county sheriff's detective Nathan Greeley says a wandering three year old. Led to the rescue of his baby brother from the wrecked car deep in a ravine.
U.S. court order 'buys time' for separated immigrant families: lawyers
"Six months. Home detention and three years supervised probation including drug testing and monitoring of communication. Devices during that time he was also. Not Contact. Waters her family. Or staff at the downtown federal. Courthouse Pete, Demetrio KNX ten seventy NewsRadio a, federal judge temporarily bars the deportation have recently reunited immigrant families the judge, in San Diego issued the order in response to, a request, citing persistent and increasing rumors that mass deportations may be carried out imminently and immediately upon reunification. Loyal professor Jessica Levinson says the order halting deportations. For one week may not give for United families enough time to decide, whether to seek asylum in the US week doesn't sound like that. Much and I think that. We will talk about this again in a week the same judge last month ordered federal officials to reunify thousands. Of kids forcibly separated from their, parents at the border and set to reunification deadlines July tenth for the youngest children July twenty six, for the older ones an official with the office. Of refugee resettlement assured, the judge some older kids. Had already been returned to their parents and said it's their intent to, reunify children promptly club you pesky talk KNX. Ten seventy NewsRadio, a federal judge has Put the brakes on any deportations, of immigrant families who are just reunited after being separated by the Trump administration zero tolerance policy. At the. Border here CBS news legal analyst Thane Rosenbaum the Trump administration separated the families from the very beginning in order to make it easier to detain the parents indefinitely or deport them immediately. It seems that they don't want to be slowed down just because the, children are going back to their parents this court's order is intended to slow things down the ruling imposes a delay of at least a week. After the ACLU said it feared, nasty Portes may be carried out immediately, upon reunification the civil liberties group also said that. Parents need. A week after being reunified with their children that decide whether they, want to pursue asylum check out the freeways..
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KFI AM 640
"Is like nailed the moaned right so i got my wife good and buzz and i say hey i got neil diamond tickets what are we got neil diamond tickets yeah i said we got good seats and she said were are there so there like 30th row was such a fine that's great i can't wait and choose all buzzed and so neels up their planes because this is unbelievable neil diamond this is great and some interns was because you know this is not neil diamond this is neil diamond field the mon yeah and she's like when we didn't tell me i i wasn't gonna tell you i was gonna you know let you believe that this was the real deal chronically twoyear six five for stimulating talk c s l b licence one zero zero eight three seven four film buddy covers it like kfi carla mark has padded changing one or two words came the meaning of something some kind of us that for that sometimes i reply to people and they don't really know my personality so they kind of and if they get a minute but you know they do it i want my the queen of the newsroom i don't want to brag but yes k pass and kost hd 2 los angeles orange county 24hour news more stimulating talk of america gandhi life from the 24hour kfi news room the allegations against christina garcia have changed the conversation surrounding the meat to movement jessica levinson is a professor at loyal a law school in she says critics of the me to move a simply couldn't by this type of publicity levinson's also pr
"jessica levinson" Discussed on KFI AM 640
"Jessica levinson says the liv is a start four democrat christina garcia i would say the important thing in addition is that we be sure that we treat christine are garcia the same way we would treat a male lawmaker who is facing these allegations a former legislative staffer from another office says garcia groped him after a softball game in 2014 a lobbyist says garcia made a crude were a sexual remark to him garcia denies the allegations the whistle has been blown against garcia who championed whistle blower legislation garcia is a leader of the meat movement in sacramento in she was a co author of a bill introduced by republican assembly warmer melissa melendez to protect whistleblowing staffers the ink was barely dry on the bill and the governor signed it melinda says this is a good example of why the laws needed this staffer who reported he was she is happen three years ago and he was too afraid to report it wanda says she's disappointed in garcia for coauthoring the legislation while bearing such a conflict of interest kris ankarlo kfi news earthquake testing has been shaking up long beach and it's not over fiber sized trucks are going up against streets sending vibrations underground to collect data on earthquake activity they sound like this first testing a neighborhood around long beach in seal beach for the next week if that big one does happen or as smaller one or medium warned that we can be better prepare for i'm all for and that's what we're trying to get out tracy farmer is with seismic la we needed a was down there to stay safe he says experts at the us geological survey cow tack and city leaders all over so cal use this data to predict quakes and come up with emergency plans in long beach monica rex kfi news the echo facts breach was bigger than they said the credit reporting company has told lawmakers the databreach at first made public last year exposed more of consumers personal information okla facts submitted paperwork to the senate banking committee showing criminals access to info such as tax id numbers email addresses phone numbers and more that's beyond the information the company disclosed in september when it reported that a databreach expose the person.