36 Burst results for "John Roberts"

Caller Suspects Justice Roberts Is the Leaker

Mike Gallagher Podcast

00:44 sec | 2 weeks ago

Caller Suspects Justice Roberts Is the Leaker

"I'm gonna be honest. I think Robert is the leaker. Who's gonna check the investigator? Right. He's done some really crazy stuff in the past who's to say that he's not floating this out there just to get an idea and say, yeah, I'm gonna investigate myself. Well, that's what Nina totenberg. We have the Nina tomberg cut guys. That's what she said on NPR will play that for you a little bit later. Nina totenberg veteran reporter over at national public radio, she thinks it's a conservative law clerk. Who knows? But again, of course, that would be a misnomer because no one would ever describe John Roberts as a conservative.

Nina Totenberg Nina Tomberg NPR Robert John Roberts
Fresh update on "john roberts" discussed on Bloomberg Law

Bloomberg Law

00:22 min | 17 hrs ago

Fresh update on "john roberts" discussed on Bloomberg Law

"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio In a case that could mean the difference between an immigrant staying in the country or being deported the Supreme Court ruled in a 5 to four decision that federal courts can't review factual decisions made by immigration officials even if there are mistakes Patel entered the U.S. illegally some 30 years ago an immigration official or a Patel be deported because he checked a box indicating he was a U.S. citizen when applying for a Georgia driver's license The case centers on an immigration law that prevents federal courts from reviewing decisions made at the discretion of immigration officials so there are many questions and some confusion of the oral arguments over whether the immigration officials decision here involved discretion or fact finding Here are chief justice John Roberts and justice Elena Kagan quizzing deputy solicitor general Austin raynor The factual issue at issue here is not that It's what was his intent when he checked the box Correct Did he But he's asked questions about what his intent was right And that your credibility comes into that right In terms of assessing the answer to this historical question the immigration judge did consider his credibility on the stand I mean the fact that he's later asked questions and his credibility is an issue doesn't make the underlying factual issue less factual I agree justice Kagan and nobody is suggesting that what are you agreeing to I mean I don't understand is it an exercise You think no discretion is involved in examining credibility My guest is Leon fresco a partner at Holland and knight Leon Patel claims he checked that U.S. citizen box by mistake because he didn't need to be a U.S. citizen to get a driver's license under Georgia law What's interesting is he was trying to remedy his side of being undocumented through a green card application that would come by virtue of his family having a petition for a green card for him because he had U.S. citizen children And during a time where he actually had no legal reason to check a box on a Georgia state driver's license but said he was the U.S. citizen he accidentally goes ahead and proceeds to check a box saying he's a U.S. citizen He did not need to say yes to because he had a pending ring card application of the vine which was sufficient basis in and of itself to give him a license And so the government raises this as a reason to deny his green card application Then the government puts them in removal proceeding and he then tried to renew this argument saying hey I should have a green card The sort of tragic case of just checking this one box by mistake has certainly the four defending justice of the body checks that my mistake now leads to him never being able to get a green card Tell us about justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion So what the Supreme Court found is that even though the U.S. government meaning the Biden administration and the applicants themselves were on the same page saying there is this authority to review They agreed with a decision from the 11th circuit which is that no No decisions even if their decisions about facts that are part of this discretionary green card process can be reviewed So this is actually a significant limitation in the future on judicial review in the green card application context The basically make the product almost any decision that is being made even if it's completely wrong so if the government says you are a polygamist and you say what are you talking about Where are there two marriage certificates that show I'm a polygamist You could not actually get that reviewed in the Supreme Court or in any other federal court because now none of that's going to be reviewable under the logic that the green card application itself is discretionary So it doesn't matter None of the underlying factual determination can be reviewed So to clarify Leon these green card decisions are being made by immigration judges who are Justice Department lawyers And under this ruling a federal judge can't review that green card decision So in essence one immigration official is the be all and end all in these cases Correct That's part of a green card application That's correct Meaning that if anybody is making a decision as part of a green card application not just that to the discretionary decision at the end give it or not based on discretion But also on any of the facts are you a polygamist Are you at a legal gambler Are you a drug dealer Are you any of these things You will have no opportunity to go in and review any of those 5 even if they're completely wrong because of the Supreme Court that said well because the larger determination is discretionary that covers everything even the factual determination Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the liberals and he wrote the dissent saying today the court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error one that will result in an individual's removal from this country and nothing can be done about it Correct It is a dramatic expansion of this non reviewability doctorate Over the last 30 years the core time sort of expanded in every way shape and form to come to the reviewability in these immigration cases that this is sort of a big what I would call empire strike back moments in which really there is a dramatic curtailment of judicial review here and frankly in the context where it's probably most likely needed These mistakes get made all the time and now if there's no judicial review one there's no error correction that's available which is a problem of in and of itself It's a huge problem But number two then more errors are likely to be made when people know that there's no error correction This is one of the factors of judicial review that people underrate is that if people know that their decision will be reviewed they're much more likely to make the correct decision in the first place And so from that standpoint this is quite a dramatic change for people going through the immigration system And justice Gorsuch has sided with the liberals in another immigration case recently Well I think this is an interesting trend So justice Gorsuch has actually now in two cases One is called Nick Chavez and wanted this case saying that he is going to hold the government to a very strict standard on deportation cases because deportation is such a drastic penalty that's being given to immigrants He wants the government to follow every detail perfectly and he won there to be judicial review Miss Chavez that was the case about whether the government has to by law give you the time and date of your hearing There he ruled yet You have to give the exact notice the date.

U.S. Bloomberg Radio Patel Supreme Court Austin Raynor Georgia Leon Fresco Knight Leon Patel Justice Amy Coney Barrett Biden Administration Elena Kagan John Roberts Kagan Confusion Holland Neil Gorsuch Government U.S. Government Justice Department Leon
The White House Ignores Harrassment of Supreme Court Justices

Dennis Prager Podcasts

01:31 min | 2 weeks ago

The White House Ignores Harrassment of Supreme Court Justices

"Passion, a lot of fear, a lot of sadness, for many, many people across this country, about what they saw in that leaked document suck, he said. I don't have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. There's no official government position on where people protest. The government is mom is quiet on the issue of going to justice's homes and screaming, nobody screams like left the screen. This was a question asked by Fox News channels Peter doocy. Doocy was signing a Fox News report that said pro choice activists under the moniker Ruth sent us. After the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a proponent of roe, published what are likely the home addresses of justices Amy Coney Barrett, Samuel Alito Brett Kavanaugh, clarence Thomas Neil Gorsuch, and chief justice John Roberts. During the briefing she also suggested conservatives were making too big of a fuss about the leak. I think what is happening here and what we think is happening here is there is an effort to distract from what the actual issue here, which is the fundamental rights, so an abortion. You know?

Fox News Channels Peter Doocy Doocy U.S. Government Amy Coney Barrett Brett Kavanaugh Clarence Thomas Neil Gorsuch Ruth Bader Ginsburg Fox News Samuel Alito Ruth John Roberts
Sen. Tom Cotton: Disinformation Is Anything Inconvenient to Biden

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:08 min | 3 weeks ago

Sen. Tom Cotton: Disinformation Is Anything Inconvenient to Biden

"Listen to Tom cotton, senator Tom cotton is one of those fighters. He appeared on Sandra Smith and John Roberts show on Fox News yesterday talking about this unbelievably overreach of addition information board and its new head Nina jankowicz. Disinformation to the Democrats is anything that's inconvenient to Joe Biden and the Democrats. Maybe at this board had been in place two years ago, they would have cracked down on me for saying that this coronavirus almost certainly came from the labs in Wuhan. They would have cracked down on all the Americans who said that masks were not terribly effective against this virus or that vaccinated people can get the virus. All the things which have been proven true so far. And as for the woman who's been appointed to this position, I mean, she appears to be mentally unstable. Like so many of the Biden administration appointees, if you look at their social media, they appear to be mentally unstable. She has no business refereeing political disputes about differing opinions.

Tom Cotton Senator Tom Cotton Sandra Smith Nina Jankowicz John Roberts Fox News Joe Biden Wuhan Biden Administration
Matt Whitaker Discusses the SCOTUS Roe v Wade Debate

The Doug Collins Podcast

02:08 min | 3 weeks ago

Matt Whitaker Discusses the SCOTUS Roe v Wade Debate

"We spent 50 years with a court that has now been just bombarded with an issue that they take up. Maybe in the last 50 years, I took up three to four times. That's it. Yeah, and you're so right. Supreme Court politics have always fascinated me because when a justice is nominated, you immediately go to what have they said on life. What have they written on life? All those types of questions. And it really, to your point, ignores a lot of the other qualifications that you would look for to Supreme Court Justice. I think this is one of Trump's greatest legacies that he was able because in his unique way you know him, I know him. And his unique way, he was able to vet out, you know, people that were really conservatives. And, you know, I've had my complaints about Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, especially. I think Amy Coney Barrett is probably the ideal Supreme Court Justice out of those three that Trump appointed. But, you know, I mean, obviously, I was around in the Bush administration as well. And I was promised that John Roberts was a conservative. And you know, I mean, I still kind of scratch my head on that whole deal because I knew that a guy with his kind of pedigree and experience, you know, sort of inside the beltway, you know, institutionalist. It was going to be very dangerous. And it's proving exactly that. I mean, if you look, if you believe the leaked document, when I know we're going to talk about leakers and liars, but if you believe this leaked draft opinion, you know, Roberts is not in the majority. And that should tell, you know, I mean, I look at life as a litmus test for conservatism, you know? Somebody once told me on the campaign trail when I was a young candidate for state treasure in Iowa that, you know, I know that if they're right on life, they're going to be right on the economic issues as well. Right, right. And I think that is exactly what you see in the case of the three Trump appointees on the

Supreme Court Gorsuch Amy Coney Barrett Donald Trump Kavanaugh John Roberts Bush Administration Roberts Iowa
Chaos Amid a Massive Security Breach at the Supreme Court

The Trish Regan Show

02:13 min | 3 weeks ago

Chaos Amid a Massive Security Breach at the Supreme Court

"Chief justice John Roberts has confirmed the authenticity of a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overrule roe versus wade. Though he admits it may not have been the final resolution. I just want to state that while I'm all about transparency and I'm all about getting information to the public. This particular case is highly unusual. It's an extraordinary breach of privacy. And threatening, frankly, to the institution that is the Supreme Court and to our country. Now the chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak of the draft just to get you up to speed, you should know that on Monday evening a 67 page opinion by just a Samuel Alito was published in its entirety by Politico, it had been circulated within the court according to the date stamped on it of February 10th, and it was to be ruled on at the end of June. This has never happened before. I mean, this is never happened. There's a sanctity, right? If you would to the court that someone there in the halls of justice clearly does not respect, now regardless of what side of the political aisle you are on. Think about what just went down. Regardless of how you feel about the issue of abortion, you got to think about how this happened and how it was done so deliberately in an attempt to undermine the justices to intimidate them potentially and clearly to create a major political issue. That is what we are going to have right now. You know, law clerks, they will be examined heavily in this because they typically see these opinions as drafts before they're signed by the justices. So they have to pledge all kinds of confidentiality. They have to avoid journalists, but someone, and we don't know, we're just speculating on the possibility of a law clerk, one would hope it's not higher up in the food chain. Someone chose not to respect that confidentiality. Someone chose to give this to a journalist. There's going to be a whole lot more to come on this investigation,

Chief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court Samuel Alito Wade Politico
Supreme Court Confirms Leaked Abortion Draft Is Authentic

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:33 min | 3 weeks ago

Supreme Court Confirms Leaked Abortion Draft Is Authentic

"Breaking now on the Mike Gallagher show, while the Supreme Court has issued a response to the report of this draft opinion, chief justice John Roberts strongly condemning the leak to the press in a brief message, the court acknowledged that the leaked document is real. So so much for my buddy Mark Davis theory that it was fake. By but noting that it is just a draft, the court has not issued a final decision on the matter. The court said, just quote, justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the court's confidential deliberative work, although the document described in yesterday's reports is authentic. It does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case. Roberts also issued a statement, he announced that he has called upon the marshal of the court to investigate the situation and find the source who leaked the document to Politico. Justice Roberts also spoke out against the notion that the leak could succeed as a political maneuver to influence the court. Roberts said to the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed the work of the court will not be affected in any

Chief Justice John Roberts Mike Gallagher Mark Davis Supreme Court Roberts Justice Roberts Politico
How Trump Saved Conservatism, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:19 min | Last month

How Trump Saved Conservatism, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court

"Presidencies can be ultimately evaluated in my view as how did they serve the constitution. And you served the constitution by the people you put on the bench. President Nixon's greatest failure is Harry blackman. Lauren Berger was not very good. Lewis Powell was okay in rehnquist was great. Ike's greatest failure was a warrant and William Brennan. Reagan's greatest failure. Though I admire her character, is justice O'Connor and justice Kennedy. H W's greatest failure is David souter. We don't know yet whether W failed when he picked John Roberts over Mike lytic. I don't think he did. I think they're both, they're both friends of mine. And they both listen to the show and so they both should hear me say, I don't think it makes a lick a difference, which one of them was going to be chief justice in the long run, though they have different temperaments. But it is Trump's triumph compared to all those other conservatives to have put on Gorsuch Kavanaugh and ABC, and when someone replaces Matt continental and writes the right in 40 years, I think they're going to hold up as the most constitutionalist person. Donald Trump and having done the most for the constitution understood is the frame of silver around the apple of gold that is the declaration by virtue of the judges and especially by virtue of those three.

Harry Blackman Lauren Berger Lewis Powell William Brennan Mike Lytic President Nixon David Souter Justice Kennedy IKE John Roberts Connor Reagan Gorsuch Kavanaugh Matt Continental Donald Trump ABC Apple
What Is Chief Justice John Roberts's Endgame Here?

The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast

02:14 min | Last month

What Is Chief Justice John Roberts's Endgame Here?

"What's justice Roberts's game? I asked us because there's a new decision just out from the Supreme Court. Our side wins 5 to four, but why 5 to four? Shouldn't it be 63? It turns out that I've laid were winning a lot of these decisions 5 to four. And what that means is that justice Roberts is for whatever reason and we'll look at the reason in a moment, tilting on the liberal side almost as if to sort of balance out the scales. And this latest decision is not a very important decision on its merits, but it's just important for what it shows about the court. The court is actually making an emergency ruling here. In other words, it's operating out of what's called its emergency docket. And the issue here is whether states and we're talking mainly about democratic states. Can restrict projects, these are actually water projects under the clean water act because they claim that these projects are environmentally risky and unhelpful. So in other words, what we're dealing with here is the authority of democratic states to have their own in a de facto veto of federal projects by saying, yeah, we're not going to take that one because that one is going to create too many strip malls in California or this one is going to this hydroelectric project or this oil and gas pipeline is going to be bad for our state. So normally when there are federal laws, the states don't get to override them. And in this case, the states want to have that power. And so Republicans in those democratic states filed lawsuits. And those lawsuits were crawling their way up the courts and so they appealed to the Supreme Court to issue an emergency ruling that basically blocks these democratic states from having this kind of override. In other words, for reinstating a Trump administration rule that basically said the states do have to conform in this respect to federal law under the clean water act.

Roberts Authority Of Democratic States Supreme Court California
Republicans Are Guilty of Putting Awful People on the Supreme Court

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:02 min | 2 months ago

Republicans Are Guilty of Putting Awful People on the Supreme Court

"Republicans have been just as guilty at putting awful people on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sandra Day O'Connor, not exactly someone who was an appreciation, was a fan of the unborn. John Roberts as well. Someone under George W. Bush. Anthony Kennedy, who was okay on some decisions, but was also a Reagan appointee. Now we've had some phenomenal conservative justices over the last 20 or 30 years, justice rehnquist was phenomenal. Scalia was exceptional. Gorsuch looks to be one of the best we've ever had. Alito is terrific. And the jury is still out. Get it on Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. But this radical left turn where we don't really care if they're qualified. We don't care whether or not they love the constitution. We want fundamental transformation. What happened more explicitly and more transparently under Barack Hussein Obama than any other president.

Sandra Day Gorsuch Anthony Kennedy John Roberts U.S. Supreme Court Connor George W. Bush Amy Coney Barrett Reagan Scalia Alito Kavanaugh Barack Hussein Obama
Chief Justice John Roberts Is 'Hollywood John'

Mark Levin

00:56 sec | 2 months ago

Chief Justice John Roberts Is 'Hollywood John'

"The fact is that John Roberts the chief of the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court is a phony and a fraud He posed as an originalist But he has become suit orized So He believes that he is leading something bigger than a court and he is interested in his legacy And he's become mush absolute mush His opinions are incoherent There's no coherent pattern to anything he's written and this is what happens when you're on board from the constitution itself I call him Hollywood John because that's what he wants He wants publicity As a moderating force you see on the courtesy really profound chief justice He's not a profound chief justice He's a profoundly idiotic chief justice

John Roberts United States Supreme Court Hollywood John
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Says the Filibuster Rule 'Drips in Racist History'

Mark Levin

01:11 min | 4 months ago

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries Says the Filibuster Rule 'Drips in Racist History'

"Here he is at a press conference study These are the things the Democrats say about America and our system It's unbelievable Cut 9 go It's essential It's important It's necessary with the fierce urgency of now to pass the Joe Manchin freedom to vote act And the John Robert Lewis voting rights advancement act By any means necessary Stop there By any means necessary The tyranny spews from the man's mouth Go ahead Including reforming a filibuster rule Reforming it Eliminating it Go ahead Ripping and racist history in defense of slavery and Jim Crow I could have sworn mister producer that Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer had said several years ago that it was used by progressives To protect progress The Democrats can't even get their story

John Robert Lewis Joe Manchin America Jim Crow Chuck Schumer Joe Biden
Chief justice: Judges must better avoid financial conflicts

AP News Radio

00:56 sec | 5 months ago

Chief justice: Judges must better avoid financial conflicts

"Supremo supremo court court justice justice John John Roberts Roberts says says the the federal federal judiciary judiciary needs needs to to do do more more to to ensure ensure judges judges don't don't take take part part in in cases cases where where they they have have financial financial conflicts conflicts of of interest interest in in his his annual annual report report on on the the federal federal judiciary judiciary Chief Chief Justice Justice John John Roberts Roberts pointed pointed to to a a Wall Wall Street Street journal journal series series that that found found in in a a recent recent eight eight year year period period a a hundred hundred thirty thirty one one federal federal judges judges participated participated in in hundreds hundreds of of matters matters that that involved involved companies companies in in which which they they or or their their families families own own shares shares of of stock stock federal federal judges judges and and Supreme Supreme Court Court justices justices are are required required to to recuse recuse themselves themselves from from cases cases where where they they have have a a personal personal financial financial interest interest Roberts Roberts noted noted the the journal's journal's report report did did not not find find that that any any of of the the conflicts conflicts affected affected the the judge's judge's actions actions and and that that the the conflicts conflicts occurred occurred in in less less than than three three hundredth hundredth of of one one percent percent of of the the cases cases handled handled but but he he says says they they are are duty duty bound bound for for one one hundred hundred percent percent compliance compliance hi hi Jackie Jackie Quinn Quinn

Federal Federal Judiciary Supremo Supremo Court Court Justice Justice John John Robe Chief Chief Justice Justice Jo Wall Wall Street Street Journa Supreme Supreme Court Court Roberts Roberts Journal's Journal Jackie Jackie Quinn Quinn
John Solomon Calls in to Discuss the Job Creators Network

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

01:59 min | 5 months ago

John Solomon Calls in to Discuss the Job Creators Network

"I'm just talking a little about job creators network and this Kavanaugh deadline today. How do you read the tea leaves on this thing? Where's it going? Well, listen, first off, I better understand 30 years. And when I came to this town, there was only one small business lobby. It's called NFIB, the national federation of independent businesses and they have gone silent in the last 5 ten years. You don't see them here. And job creators network has become one of the most forceful voices in all of corporate America, but particularly for Main Street America in small business. So over the course of this year, they've done a lot of big things. They sued Major League Baseball to call attention to the economic losses from moving the All-Star Game to from Atlanta to Denver. They got involved in some of these mandates. And now with this particular mandate, the private businessman that they've gotten to the Supreme Court was one of the I think big challenges. And I think it's going to sound, is there in federal law, the capability for government on its own executive branch to impose upon business and requirements, they get their employees vaccinated. A lot of people that I've talked to legal experts both on the left and right think this is a dubious power that Biden has assumed. And so I think this court is going to look, it's a 6 three conservative court, particularly when you look at economic and economic freedom issues. Robert says to be more consistent with the other 5 conservative justices, a 6 three pro anti regulatory coalition. I think probably the court is going to come down and say that this is unconstitutional and it can't be done. But we'll have to wait and see this is going to be one of the first big tests of big government's power under the Biden administration. But a lot of the experts I'm talking to expect the court to either be 6 three 5 four saying that this doesn't exist in law the power to do this doesn't exist a mob and only Congress can bestow that power to the executive branch. You always pucker when you're talking about John Roberts because he

Nfib Kavanaugh America Major League Baseball Denver Atlanta Supreme Court Biden Biden Administration Robert Congress John Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts Receives Highest Approval Rating Among Federal Leaders: Poll

Mike Gallagher Podcast

00:34 sec | 5 months ago

Chief Justice Roberts Receives Highest Approval Rating Among Federal Leaders: Poll

"Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts holds the highest approval rating of all senior leaders in the U.S. this according to a new Gallup poll that was released yesterday. More than half of Americans hold a favorable view of Roberts, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell, and director, get this now. You ready? Director of the national Institutes of allergy and infectious disease, doctor Anthony Fauci. That was a surprise he Fauci is even more popular. Than Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jerome Powell Supreme Court National Institutes Of Allergy Federal Reserve U.S. Roberts Anthony Fauci Fauci Joe Biden Kamala Harris
Election Integrity and the Courts

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:44 min | 5 months ago

Election Integrity and the Courts

"Good day, Charlie. Hello. I agree with you completely that voting is the top priority for the Democrats. They want federal elections so they can stay in power and have a one party system forever. They know that if they don't have this, they could lose a lot of elections over the years. I thought this was interesting. They fought hard for HR one, but it ended too easily, which I also found interesting. Why did they not push harder on it? They just let it go because it just makes sense to come back to it when people aren't paying attention. Very, very wise. It is a smoke and mirrors game if you think of it. Now my question to you is this the U.S. Constitution says the states oversee the handling of elections and electors. Say this gets passed. Can't the courts take it down since it goes against the constitution. Theoretically yes, but the courts have ruled unpredictably on issues especially recently. The courts need to be the absolute worst case scenario and even then you know you're rolling the dice of something gets in front of the courts. If we, if we go all in on just a court driven strategy, the more fooling ourselves as if we actually wanted a feat bad legislation and put good legislation. And one of the best examples of this and many of you remember, was John Roberts and his betrayal on ObamaCare. ObamaCare was basically dead on arrival ObamaCare was unlife support. Under the Obama regime, ObamaCare was not going to be ruled constitutional. Until John Roberts, in a very surprising turn of events and development out of nowhere said, you know what? Actually, it's a tax.

Charlie U.S. John Roberts Barack Obama
Let Us Not Forget Joy Reid’s Homophobic Blog Posts and Subsequent Hacking Lies

The Larry Elder Show

02:05 min | 5 months ago

Let Us Not Forget Joy Reid’s Homophobic Blog Posts and Subsequent Hacking Lies

"No joy Reid had a blog. 2007, 2008, 2009, before she became a hostel innocent behead. And in her blog, she made a number of posts smearing, mocking, attacking, gaze. She implied that Tom Cruise was gay. Karl rove. She said was gay. The then senator of Florida. Chris Christie. Charlie Christie. Charlie Chris weaver. She's called him miss Charlie, miss charley, stop pretending brother, it's okay, you don't go for the ladies. And another one she wrote, now he's married to a girl, Charlie Chris is being sought for all kinds of good stuff. Quote, I can just see poor Charlie on the honeymoon, ogling the male waiters and taking to himself, God, do I actually have to see her naked? It included a joke with Chris having sex with senator John McCain? She implied that chief justice John Roberts son is gay. She also said this, quote, most straight people cringe at the sight of two men kissing. She also said quote, adult gay men tend to be attracted to very young post pubescent types. And in one post, she said, quote, does that make me homophobic? Probably close quote. Now these posts emerged after she got a job as a host on MSNBC. And guess what, she denied making them. She said she'd been hacked. She was a victim of a homophobic hate crime. NBC hired a forensic specialist to determine whether or not she'd been hacked. She wasn't. She lied. And later on, she acknowledged she'd posted them.

Joy Reid Charlie Christie Charlie Chris Weaver Miss Charley Charlie Chris Charlie Chris Christie Karl Rove Chief Justice John Roberts Tom Cruise Senator John Mccain Florida Chris Msnbc NBC
At historic abortion arguments, conservatives signal changes

AP News Radio

00:59 min | 6 months ago

At historic abortion arguments, conservatives signal changes

"The the supreme supreme court's court's conservative conservative majority majority is is suggesting suggesting potential potential sweeping sweeping changes changes to to abortion abortion rights rights roe roe V. V. Wade Wade legalized legalized abortion abortion nearly nearly fifty fifty years years ago ago when when the the court court reaffirmed reaffirmed the the decision decision two two decades decades later later ruling ruling states states cannot cannot ban ban abortions abortions until until the the fetus fetus is is considered considered viable viable around around twenty twenty four four weeks weeks the the courts courts now now being being asked asked to to overturn overturn those those rulings rulings in in a a case case about about a a Mississippi Mississippi ban ban on on abortion abortion after after fifteen fifteen weeks weeks Chief Chief Justice Justice John John Roberts Roberts is is among among conservative conservative members members questioning questioning the the viability viability line line why why is is fifteen fifteen weeks weeks not not enough enough time time the the court court could could simply simply uphold uphold the the Mississippi Mississippi law law and and say say nothing nothing else else but but abortion abortion rights rights supporters supporters say say that that would would still still effectively effectively overturn overturn roe roe V. V. Wade Wade Sony Sony a a sodomite sodomite war war and and other other liberal liberal justices justices suggested suggested that that may may create create a a public public perception perception that that the the High High Court Court is is simply simply a a political political arm arm will will this this institution institution survives survives the the stench stench Sager Sager made made Ghani Ghani Washington Washington

Roe Roe V. V. Wade Wade Supreme Supreme Court Mississippi Chief Chief Justice Justice Jo Sony High High Court Court Sager Sager Ghani Ghani Washington Washing
Justices Blast Texas Abortion Ruling

The 11th Hour with Brian Williams

01:59 min | 9 months ago

Justices Blast Texas Abortion Ruling

"All four dissenting judges justices filed opinions. Some scathing against the majority's refusal to block that texas law that virtually bands abortion chief justice. John roberts who joined the court's three liberals wrote quote the statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual but unprecedented end quote justice. Sonia so to my order was much more direct quote saying quote a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. She goes on to say it cannot be the case that a state can evade federal judicial scrutiny. By outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry with us again. I kneel cocktail department of justice veteran and former acting solicitor general during the obama administration. He argued dozens of cases before the united states supreme court. Neil good to see you. Thank you for being with us. We need your clarity on this. What did chief justice john roberts in describing this as unusual and unprecedented the bottom line is the supreme court basically gave a thumbs up to the overruling of roe versus wade so abortion clinics as of yesterday in texas are essentially closed to all patients. And what the court west texas yesterday can be enacted tomorrow in other states in deed will other states Code already Said they're gonna try to enact such legislation and so with the chief justice was referring to was. This is a really weird. Texas scheme outlawed abortion after six weeks effectively. But it said the state isn't gonna enforced instead. It created vigilante justice. Any private citizen could sue anyone. Who's helping anyone get an abortion so if you'd like take an uber to the ocean clinic this law said you can the uber driver and sue them anywhere in texas including far away from their homes and seek ten thousand dollars in damages against them plus attorneys

John Roberts Obama Administration Texas Sonia Supreme Court Department Of Justice Neil ROE Wade United States
"john roberts" Discussed on Trumpcast

Trumpcast

03:44 min | 11 months ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Trumpcast

"So it's not clear to me if her concurrence really mattered or whether she was kind of playing everybody and manage to help craft narrative in classic john roberts style to make her conservatism. Seemed like centrism. Part of my ongoing beef with supreme court coverage is it is so personality driven the personalities of the justices and whether that was the cultivar. Bg raid the tote bag indication of how we think about feminism and progressive activism or the attempt on the right to co-opt the cult of rv g. for justice barrett. I think part of the retired justice briar thing again puts way too much importance on individuals as opposed to systemic change. Right like things that you can do. That are probably in the long term if this is indeed a long game decades long game as you point out much more effective than harassing individual jurists off the court but i think part of the problem also is that it allied is really complicated questions like voting and so maybe let's end on voting only because all the focus on Barrett and cavanaugh. Are these centrists after all. I think distract so profoundly from what just happened to voting rates. And just to teed it up i will say this is another thing that was happening and the shadow docket long before we got to burn vich. We were seeing a orders that were changing really really changing doctrinal positions. They didn't necessarily command five oats and change the outcome of the twenty twenty election but we were seeing faints at fundamentally. Changing how states can oversee their own elections happening on the shadow docket and then the term ends with i think to incredibly consequential decisions both six three by the way that really in a systems way that cannot be lashed to anyone justice or their personality or their face on a t. Shirt really really. I think imperils the project of democracy right absolutely. You've got all six justices in berna vich. Dnc the big case of the term. Really gutting the voting rights act and sort of neutering this decades old law that prohibits any voting restriction that results in disproportionate disenfranchisement of racial minorities. So the six conservative justices take this revolutionary law. That was supposed to stamp out. The last vestiges of jim crow and prevent states from passing any kind of voter suppression measure that has a disparate impact on racial minorities and turns it into nothing. Right flattens this. Law and demure symbolism creates this multi factor test that has no relationship to the text of the law and just manipulates it to ensure that lower courts will uphold essentially all restrictions on the franchise under what remains of the voting rights act and barrett joined that opinion in full and kavanagh joined that opinion in full. They didn't write anything else. They didn't have any concerns or qualifications and yet despite casting the fifth and sixth votes they got almost no attention right. That was not. Oh look at these. Two justices dragging the court far to the right. It was an aberration in an otherwise agreeable term which strikes me as a fundamentally wrong way to think about a decision that constitutes an attack on the one right that is preservative of all other rights. Yeah and i think. I think that very last thing you said is the thing that i would ask listeners. To take away from this conversation..

justice barrett john roberts cavanaugh supreme court Barrett Dnc jim crow kavanagh barrett
"john roberts" Discussed on Trumpcast

Trumpcast

02:50 min | 11 months ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Trumpcast

"What the rule was. We just saw the rule change as you said Now any state or municipality that puts into an effect a lockdown order in an existential global pandemic if they make an exemption for nail salons or bike shops the exemption goes to churches to and that is profoundly without getting into the weeds of employment division and religious liberty cases but i think it is a profound up ending of how religious liberty has been analyzed at the court and it happened with nobody noticing and a lot of what happened in the shadows. This year was so so so consequential in profound and because it just slipped out in late night orders. The press didn't necessarily give it the attention it needed and the court kind of ignored it when the court analyzed fulton. They act as though they hadn't already fundamentally altered the rules of religious liberty and radically altering those rules in shadow docket. Five to four decision is not something a moderate would do right so that alone. That data point alone should be proof enough to put to bed. The canard that amy conybeare it is a moderate. No no moderate no judge with a genuine moderate bent would ever manipulate a courts rules. Philly break a courts rules to affect such a radical shift and yet that's what barrett did and we know she was the fifth vote here because even chief justice roberts who's genuinely good friend to religious freedom and even religious exemptions. He dissented from from tannin from the decision. We're talking about And i noticed in so many of these end of the term up pieces when journalists were giving their breakdown of how divided the court was and how unanimous the court was excluded shadow docket decisions so they say oh there were so few five to four decisions but that's only in the normal cases. These shadow daca cases were quite frequently five to four. But because they aren't being factored into the stats. Nobody notices them and the end of term rapa pieces create the false impression the false narrative that the court is more unanimous and more in agreement on major major issues than it actually is. So we're going to take a break here but if you like what you're hearing and you wanna hear more from dalia and myself on another topic checkout our sleep.

amy conybeare fulton justice roberts Philly barrett dalia
"john roberts" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest

Slate's Double X Gabfest

03:19 min | 11 months ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest

"We head out. We want to give some recommendations and dolly. I'm curious what are you loving right now. So this is gonna sound corny. But i just want to root it in the fact that i am somehow on my v rental home in four years and just completely as so so many of our listeners are still upside down ish in this interregnum between ovid's and having my kids go out into the world the thing that believe it or not has been giving me sanity. The last couple of weeks is my gorgeous supreme court women mug that i got from resistance by design. And i know it's just ridiculous to show for a company that makes the a mug with the faces of the four supreme court female justices. This was the one actually. It came out before justice. Ginsburg died and also before amy kuney barrett was on the court. But somehow that has been giving me life. And i'll just say resistance by design partners with a whole bunch of amazing amazing amazing projects including all bunch of voting rates projects. Y'all probably saw that. Vote mask that was everywhere last full. That's there were but portions of the the money from the sales of these things go to all sorts of good projects. It helped each people really wacky complicated. Things like what gerrymandering is so. I am a big fan of my mug. And i have to say particularly in the last week. Mark as you and i have been staggering around hollow-eyed and leaf razi about the state of the supreme court. My little funny mug with the faces of the i four women on the supreme court has been giving me life. What's your thing mark. What's your recommendation. Well i guess keeping loosely with this theme. I'm going to recommend an awesome tanktop recently. That has the dc flag on it and it says douglas commonwealth which is the name that the district of columbia will have when it does become the fifty first state. because i'm choosing optimism. Here it will stay dc but it will be douglas commonwealth instead of the district of columbia as proud washingtonian. I feel it's important to both sort of flaunt my support for statehood. But also normalize the idea of statehood because a lot of republicans. I think exploits the fact that we're also used to a fifty star flag by the way there's a fifty one star flag flying outside my house right now they say oh how could it possibly be a state it sounds so weird douglas commonwealth who couldn't even pronounce that well i can and i'm proud to show it off on my dog walks around the neighborhood and i got this shirt from a company called dc statehood gifts in apparel. The name is what it is. They've got a ton of stuff online. That's all in keeping with the statehoods theme. And i definitely encourage everyone to go normalize douglas commonwealth which will be our fifty. I mark if there's a through line here it has to be me walking around in my gerrymander. Sucks by resistance by design and you walking around in your in your dc statehood t shirt. I think maybe the through line here is friends. Purchase apparel that makes people ask hard questions. About what the hell you're.

douglas commonwealth supreme court amy kuney barrett Ginsburg columbia Mark
"john roberts" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest

Slate's Double X Gabfest

06:18 min | 11 months ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Slate's Double X Gabfest

"Bb king and more join them and relive joyous celebration of black and latte next culture now playing in theaters and on hulu so dolly. Let's talk about that confirmation. Hearing back in october a somewhat traumatic time justice. Ginsburg just died. The election was right around the corner. And as you noted democrats chose to make it all about the affordable care act and say well if this individual is confirmed she could take away healthcare from tens of millions of people including all of these wonderful children and individuals who are so deserving of healthcare and. I'm curious looking back now. What what do you make of that. Strategy of that introduction of amy conybeare it to the world by democrats yeah. I've been really thinking about that mark. And i think in some sense. It goes to that predictive foresight and hindsight in other words. The democrats made a choice. They didn't quite know how to attack judge barrett. They knew we should note that from her confirmation hearings for her job at the seventh circuit. The federal appeals court where she had sat for three years. They couldn't touch a lot of the issues that were at the heart of what they were really worried about right. Which is her religious views and what she's written about the right to abortion generally but also just things that surfaced during the confirmation hearings about how early and often She was saying things like life begins at conception and how really involved she was both in a judicial project to say. That story decisive or president just doesn't matter so there's that that she just doesn't have a lot of qualms about reversing cases so they weren't willing to talk about how she thought about precedent also she. She wouldn't answer. They weren't really willing to say. How does your view about reproductive freedom of and reproductive rights braid into the way you think about your job as a jurist. She had explicitly written about that right. We know that she has put that into evidence. Before dem's didn't wanna touch that either and that combined with the fact that she simply wouldn't answer questions questions like very fundamental questions about. Can the president stop the election fundamental questions about things that totally orthogonal all to her own job as a justice. And so i think all of that men that dem's were sort of boxed in that they chose to make this about the affordable care act because they wanted it to be a kitchen table objection to bear it that everybody could understand. It's not complicated. I don't have to explain. Section two of the voting rights act. I can just say she's taking your healthcare away. But in the end the fact that that didn't materialize the fact that she happily signed on with the seven to two majority. That kicked away the affordable. Care act case. I think made the dams look a little dumb you. I think it's worth noting that dem's did touch the religion issue during barrett's confirmation hearing to the seventh circuit to the lower court and it was like an electric fence and they got electrified. Dianne feinstein said the dogma lives loudly within you and Celebrity of the right was born. There were mugs and shirts and headbands. You could buy that said. The dog lives within you. She became a makoni. Barrett became a kind of hero to the right because she was supposedly persecuted for her religious beliefs. For belonging to a religious organization called people of praise. Some commentators ask questions about and immediately the white house and its allies framed. all of that as anti-catholic animus right until a few years later by the time she was there for a job interview for the supreme court. Democrats had been so scarred by that. I think that they really would not touch it with a ten foot pole as you noted and that did leave them boxed in and i guess they made the choice. Let's talk about healthcare because like you said it's not complicated and also it doesn't raise these fraud issues. The way that abortion reproductive freedom does we don't have to get into the whole question of anti-catholic annemasse and no one will be able to accuse us of hating her because she's catholic. Of course conservatives did still accuse democrats of hating her because she's cop but that's just completely unavoidable. Let's put a name on that. That was josh. Holly setting up the confirmation hearings to say democrats are going to ask about griswold versus connecticut. And that's a dog whistle about how much they hate. Religious people right that was explicitly shot across the bow. And what holly did. I think was scummy but i think it was also relatively canny because it worked and scared democrats away from asking hard questions so all they asked about with healthcare and i guess we should get into the case this term essentially this was a i think a really frivolous ridiculous case where the state of texas joined by a bunch of other conservative states argued that the entire affordable care act became unconstitutional after congress zeroed out the penalty for people who don't purchase health insurance. We don't need to get into the details. Because i think just. A brief description illustrates why. It's such a nutty theory. And i will say at the time. I was harshly critical of democrats for seizing on this case. Because i said look this is a ridiculous case. And the mere fact that total partisan hacks in the lower courts have embraced texas. Theory does not mean that this is going to get five votes on the supreme court and my fear was she would say okay. This is too nutty for me. I'm just gonna kick this case to the road. And then republicans would jump up dance around and say hey democrats you accuse this woman as being out to kill the affordable care act but guess what she had the opportunity and she didn't so she must be moderates and that just framing feels totally wrong to me. But it's the inevitable result of democrats using the case as the litmus test for any coney barrett's radical nece this term..

amy conybeare judge barrett federal appeals court dem Ginsburg hulu Dianne feinstein mark barrett Barrett supreme court white house griswold Holly josh connecticut holly texas congress
"john roberts" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

WIBC 93.1FM

02:49 min | 1 year ago

"john roberts" Discussed on WIBC 93.1FM

"And for that reason we have a shall issue system here. But again, the Supreme Court. This just this year refused to take multiple cases involving May issue systems in different states. And we kept looking at that going. Why is this when you tell you what my speculation is because I don't think the other Second Amendment supporters On the bench. Including Thomas, including Gorsuch. And including Cavanaugh have trusted John Roberts. Now. Now there's what I call 5.5 Conservatives on the Supreme Court. Why? Why not? Six. A lot of people don't know They're six. Well, I could trust and there's reason not to trust him. He's the one that rewrote Obama care so as to not hold it unconstitutional. He had to change the words. Yes, Chief Justice John Roberts did that That's not a conservative ruling. He's the one that manufactured a right to same sex marriage out of the Constitution. Now again, I don't oppose same sex marriage. I don't care. It's not on my radar screen. You people want Form a contract with each other. I don't care. God bless him, Let him do whatever they want to do. That's the libertarian in me. Having said that, while I don't care, I just don't think the government should be in it at all. I don't think the government should be involved in that issue. But what I don't see is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. They had to manufacture one John Roberts did that. So now we've got 5.5 concerns We can lose John Roberts. Still win onto a cases. That's huge. But why is there so much at stake still win this election because it's been not so subtly implied, if not outright stated. The Democrats want Pack the court. They want to add seats. You would take it all the way up to 13 or 15 at that many more liberals And have the conservatives back in the minority. Could they do that? Yeah, they could. It's been done before. We haven't always had nine that was done by Congress. Could that happen again? Yes, it could, and that's now at stake. Among many other things, including here at the local level, which will get into when we come back right now we're taking a break. We always want to take your calls were a call in show for our whole two hours. I think we're the only show on WNBC takes calls for the entire duration of the show. Did you know that? Well, because we started out as just a call in show exclusively. It was asked the gun guy. It's I filled in for a couple of other host that led to me having a show so we want to stay true to your roots. Give us a call 317239 93 93. This is guy Relford on the gun guy show on 93 WNBC.

John Roberts Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts guy Relford Cavanaugh Gorsuch Thomas Obama Congress
"john roberts" Discussed on KHVH 830AM

KHVH 830AM

01:34 min | 2 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on KHVH 830AM

"John Roberts around the events centre fencing and concrete barriers since protesters are also expected I have no doubt in my mind that we as professionals coming around right now trying to infiltrate create problems Oklahoma senator James in Hoff another concern the rising number of coronavirus cases in Tulsa White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany reiterating that while the trump campaign will provide masks to those attending tonight's rally in Tulsa they're not mandatory the Tulsa health department said in a statement that it's concerned about the safety of any large gathering of people in enclosed places where social distancing is difficult to maintain fox says John decker publishing of the tell all book written by former national security adviser John Bolton will go forward a federal judge giving the green light while also blasting built in for a quote gambling with national security the White House to try to block the book's publication saying it contained classified information massive amounts according to a tweet by president trump there's been a shooting inside Seattle's autonomous zone police say one person was killed although authorities have not been able to access the site America is listening to fox news did you hear the news now you can with instant updates from fox news for Amazon Alexa breaking stories in Tom Daley coronavirus developments the economy and so much more brought to you by the fox news.

Seattle fox Tom Daley Amazon president John decker press secretary Tulsa White House Oklahoma America John Roberts White House John Bolton Tulsa health department Tulsa Kayleigh McEnany Hoff senator
"john roberts" Discussed on KOMO

KOMO

01:36 min | 2 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on KOMO

"Justice John Roberts will be sworn in and then all one hundred senators will be sworn in as jurors Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the houses our his overall the Senate for calm is at hand it's time for this proud body to honor our founding purpose he still is not set up any witnesses will be called during the trial the onetime movie power broker was accused by numerous women of sexual assault once his trial moved out of New York City party wants to renew his demand for a change of venue in eighty seven page motion that argued the vast majority of prospective jurors have been tainted by a deluge of pre trial publicity the defense also cited what it called a carnival like atmosphere that includes reporters and cameras celebrity press conferences and protests ABC's Erin to Turkey dials up one sixty six you're listening to ABC news stay informed como morning news eight oh two right now Thursday morning cloudy skies here in downtown Seattle mostly dry thirty seven degrees along with great Herschel time by the factor here the top stories from the come on twenty four seven news center a road rage incident last night there university places taken the life of a dupont man we get the details from Cuomo's Brian Calvert's witnesses say a Chevy Silverado was being driven erratically down chambers creek road after passing several vehicles the pickup came to a stop in the middle of the lane the driver got out and waved a gun at the two men in the pick up directly behind him a passenger in the truck right behind him had a hand gun they got out of the short confrontation shots fired use county.

Brian Calvert Chevy dupont Herschel como ABC New York City Silverado John Roberts Cuomo Seattle Erin assault Senate Mitch McConnell
"john roberts" Discussed on KSFO-AM

KSFO-AM

13:03 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on KSFO-AM

"That trump is still working on the services chip question because my point is that John Roberts bent over backwards well Bob on the ACA and then from his nose at trump on the citizens that question and like you said is on his own with his supporters he gets no help from any of the people you think would have in the back after all the time and all he's accomplished I sure wish I could remember who tweeted this who what it was our old buddy match lap is GOPAC but not not that they have the job could American yeah but would yeah dad that what's the delivery what does it say backseat Baghel taxi back yeah man match lap tweeted that he would be in favor of impeaching John Roberts for lying in his confirmation hearings about supporting the constitution because John Roberts has gone around the constitution twice one to re write obamacare to make it legal and then this sense of sense censorship question I think that that I don't I don't know the Chief Justice I know some of the others I don't know him but he strikes me as a never Trumper a Washington establishment never Trumper yeah I think he is and and I think that what brought what prompts you would think he would have he would be doing things that would support well it's not the chief justices job to support the president here but it's exactly what Obama I can tell you exactly what happened here Obama sins of obamacare it's not constitutionally the federal government cannot mandate this is the fourth amendment the federal government cannot mandate that anybody buy anything they can't do it it's on constant obamacare had a mandate that you buy health insurance that rendered the whole thing if we had an up front Supreme Court that was not politicize the hope it would have been thrown out before it even got there and certainly if it survives lower court challenges the Supreme Court when I got her John Roberts got hold of and rewrote it and re framed that mandate as a tax in order to say that the bill qualified as constitutional because of course the federal government can levy taxes and so the mandate was then re class I'm giving it a really the cliff notes version of this he rewrote the the mandate that we all buy health insurance as essentially attacks and I know exactly why he is he's if the Washington Post style section is on the block if a reporter from the style section a washed and put he knows there is no way yeah this is my gas gets a while gas educated there's no way that John Roberts Chief Justice wanted to go down in history as the Chief Justice who declared the first signature legislative backed out of the first African American president constitute he didn't want that on his legacy and his resume whatever he didn't he didn't want that at all and he may have even been a believer in about a care who knows question citizenship this was a pond the Supreme Court said well you know we don't really rule a line cases where we're seeing evidence for the first time a lower courts do this and then we decide after there's no when we don't provide over cases where evidence has been presented for the first time this is one of the rationale given for punching the case back to the back to the lower courts and it it just it it was wonderfully clear that that the chief and and maybe the entire court on this this didn't want any part of this in the old saw that they know all they re election results as as well now there's another bid a Supreme Court news out there today fox Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg has publicly praised justice Cavanaugh you know why because justice Cavanaugh beginning with his next term of the court returns in October justice capital will have an all female staff of clerks for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court a particular justices Clark's will be all female note that it's not a we're doing this act at Ruth Buzzi didn't do it Ginsburg data that that cannot and it means that when the court reconvenes in October what do you what do you laughing at it I don't naturally funny guy but no they took the job date they also take good job none of them were apparently afraid of justice capital none of them apparently call ballsy Ford and asked is it safe to work for this guy you know is there is that rape train story true or they didn't ask that they just showed up and I took the job as Clarence frogman Henry took the job when I offered it to him to be the musical entertainment a rush to excellent store anyway the the additional statistic is that when the court reconvenes in October it means that for the first time a majority all of the clerks throughout the entire Supreme Court will be women where if I really wanted to goose the feminist what can I say it takes a man for women to advance that's what I would say if I was trying to go I didn't say it that's what I would say I would point out that for these women to get hired and took a guy doing it took a guy hiring for women to advance at that degrees of freedom court it took an of all guys you've talked Cavanaugh the guy that ballsy Ford said he hated women was on qualified because of what he had done to women I mean the irony here is great and if I wanted to goose Gloria Steinem and and they him club I could come out with that observation I didn't come out with that observation I said I could say it's a very very important distinction and they think I'm on the ledge today here's a here's Susan Susan in Jamaica Virginia great to have you on the EIB network hello I wrote you are such a hoot in this world garland with an open line Wednesday Friday whatever we want to call the question I'm calling about your commercials that you do and I'm worried about it for a long time you put so much heart and so much passion into them they sound totally unscripted and so casual is used they were like you are running into a friend on the street or something always wonder what is the process and how do you how does a person just like me start to advertise on your show how does that happen well you know I can I can spend probably use the next two segments answering the question and that probably be more inside baseball and you want the key the key agree and by the way this is a great open line Friday I once they question and I appreciate more than you know your observations about the about the the quote unquote performance of these commercials that the first requirement I mean we are we are we are requested by a lot of firms for such an opportunity to have a short a live in program content commercial spot and we have a limit on how many they will be and we have a limit to how many today how many a week and they have to be products that I use am familiar with and have genuine passion about otherwise you would not be able to say what you just said if you were right you you would not always if I was unfamiliar with what I was talking about you would know or detect if by wasn't passionate about it you would know if I was having a contrivance things up about right that makes sense like and some of them some of them when they're first pitch to me are questionable until I have meetings and determine what kind of the way in freedom I'm going to have because after all it's me that their purchasing I mean have anybody do other commercials they write them but they're asking for me to do it so I have to the terminal leeway but that has to be like the most recent one are one of the most recent ones is the Norton yeah that is such a crucial empanada big tech personally with such a crucially important thing for people if they're interested in privacy as they use their devices and most people don't know the virtual private network as they may have seen it in the settings as they scanned their phone VPM but they don't know what it is don't know how to go about setting it up and now they're ubiquitous and there are a lot of them out there that are fraudulent that that that don't charge Jill that means they're not delivering what they claim to but it's just if if that's something that's easy to advise people on because it's such a a smart thing to do to be invisible when there's all kinds of hackers and people planting malware trying to there's a great benefit in being invisible as you as you surf the net or if you deal with messages or emails I in that case a ball and branch sheets and it's a it's the same thing as senator should somebody you say the one thing I'm gonna find out for myself am I spent a lot of time with them same thing with the mattress it it the the the primary ingredient has to be that I cannot I cannot have to make anything up about it it won't work if I do right right well that that comes across and I was just I wonder what is the starting point for for what do you mean the starting on a let me know I mean how how do you do you have a product you want to sell is that where this is going or you just Gen general hi I do I do but I I I don't know where to write who did who did I mean I catch on the phone now right ET you know I don't want to if it will see normally I don't talk to the this is not this is not totally true because there are clients that I bring in myself based on my own desire to have the men but the normal processes I I don't hear about this until people like you have been vetted by our eminently qualified state of the art sales staff and there's a lot to the Vatican process and for example in the early days of the program what it was what what when the the first big success sponsorship like this was Snapple so what what happened after that all kinds of people that manufactured something that was you know maybe distributed in two states would come and say we did it really push this force assembled working people get it what will only in two stages wait a minute you want me to get the product distributed for you and then you want me to get it you want to put it on the shelves of office yeah I said that's sorry can't do that the if you don't have the distribution already I'm not gonna spend time telling people where they get that that they can't get something that exists out there just that that's not fair to the audience right there there's all kinds of factors that go into this but distribution you've gotta have nationwide distribution you've got to have a is the ability for people to get and and and has to be what you say it is it has to be what you tell us that is it can't be a brand new project or anything like that no you can be they're very very if a brand new we have a lot of start ups over the year many start ups of come to us because we've been successful in launching start ups but there has to be a built in distribution process where if I'm going to tell people if every time I do the commercial we're gonna have anywhere from six you know five six million people they better be able to easily find it now if you can sell when an eight hundred number website only those things are those things are mitigating factors.

Bob ACA John Roberts
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

03:27 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"I think we're beyond the soft gentle term anymore. Just like you said there's there's no crying in baseball. There's no gentle at the supreme court anymore. It's just by virtue of who's up there and our times and this divided government. I think that the the most likely grant would be in the partisan gerrymander situation where it's actually an appeal from situations in north caroli-. Mina in Maryland. Essentially, forcing the justices hand on whether they're going way into these. Really politically charged disputes over how legislatures draw their election maps. We're voters are packed or cracker. Whatever into these districts that end up essentially, rigging the outcomes by virtue of where people are able to vote and for which kind of candidates in district's throughout a state. I think that they will have to take it up giving the posture that these appeals are coming from North Carolina and Marilyn so that that is one to wait into that is a case that's kind of case the chief definitely does not want to be a part of as we saw in what he wrote in the Wisconsin case of last term where he said, you know, if we start taking on these these disputes substantively, if we rule for for example, a democratically controlled legislature won't the public thing that we. Favor democrats. And conversely, if we rule for Republican dominated legislature won't people see that. I mean when he said that it will arguments he was revealing again, the lens through which he is seen the court in the public eye. And I think that can't help but affect his actions on many cases, but but this one nonetheless will be before the justices, and I think the the folks challenging these partisan gerrymanders are going to try to make the case that if the court does not intervene and set some standards they will actually be seen as part of the political problem not exacerbating, the political problem. I feel as though if this podcast had a subtext, it would be John Roberts between a rock and a hard place in about twelve different interational. And I want to just say Joan, I know you're quite literally writing a first draft of history as it's happening under your feet trying to understand John Roberts as he is. I think Morphing in front of us in some ways has to be a both confounding and fascinating. And I just I can't tell you how much I appreciate you taking a little time to help us understand as I said, I think the most intriguing quiet banned in America. So we look forward to your book. I can't wait to have you back to talk about it. Joan scoop it covers the court for CNN her book the chief the life in turbulent times of chief Justice John Roberts will come out. This March Joan thank. You so very very much for being with us today. Thank you Dahlia, it's always a pleasure to talk about the court. And that is a wrap for this episode of amicus happy twenty nineteen. Thank you.

John Roberts democrats Joan baseball caroli North Carolina Mina Maryland Wisconsin CNN Marilyn America
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

04:56 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"The narrative, he's trying to tell there's another thing that I think you said implicitly, but let's say it explicitly, which is all of these DOJ efforts to leapfrog cases to the supreme court into just say like, we don't even need to go through anything. Let's just have the court decided in our favor tells exactly the story that you imputed to Donald Trump, which is it doesn't matter. What the lower courts do because I've got the supreme court. They're going to give me what I want. And I think John Roberts hates that story. Right. So all these efforts to before cases even begun to be litigated to run to the supreme court and say, you know, but. Mommy. Give me what I want John Roberts hates that story. And so he in some sense is batting away. These cases in the early stages because it's very very easy and cost way to protect the integrity of the entire article. Three judiciary? Is that? Right. That's right. That's right. You know? I think many of the justices talk among themselves about what the solicitor general is doing right now. And they they like tradition they like systems they like orderliness, as you know, from having worked in the third branch people in the judiciary like hierarchies, they like orderliness, and nobody wants anything disruptive in addition to when when John Roberts testified a back in two thousand five in the invoked his umpire metaphor. He also talked about jolt to the system they don't want substantive jolts. And they also don't want jolts that you take them out of their their their usual course of how how? Things operate, and you know, you, and I could we can't even count on you know, two hands anymore. You know, all the all the emergency requested have come to the supreme court saying, you know, we're going to quickly jump over an appeals court or we want to some sort of emergency urgent resolution of this because we need our policy. Take affect the supreme court doesn't like that. At least it signaled so far that it doesn't want that. But but the signals have not been. Completely consistent. And what I would say is let's wait to really assess things. Until we see a ruling on the merits and have more data points. You know, many people jumped on some of the early actions of Brad Kavanagh in the first couple months of his tenure. And I think we have to we just don't know yet. I think we can say as as I've written is that he he he's not trying to gather a lot of public attention. He's he's laying low. He's he doesn't want want to be seen as is disrupting the system in any of the ways that I just referred to. But he has not been consistently with the conservatives, and you're not been consistently with John Roberts. Although it is clear that John Roberts would like him as a partner in this effort to try to lower the temperature and try to make the court appear in the public mind above politics. So two quick lightning round question. On John Roberts other stories that I suspect you got a lot of male about where people were making definitive statements about John Roberts, and they may have been not a big deal. One. Is there were eighty three complaints about Cavanaugh that were, you know, referred I to the DC circuit. And then they went to Robertson. Then Robert's spike them to a judicial panel. There were a lot of complaints that John Roberts deliberately waited until Brett Cavanaugh was sworn in. So that he would not be subject to judicial ethics rules and that he deliberately sent it to a judge that Brett Cavanaugh had had worked to get appointed. When Brett Kevin worked in the White House. Is there some sense in in your view that claims that John Roberts sort of masterminded all this? So that Cavanaugh couldn't be tagged for his behavior during the hearings of I is that unfair to John Robert. This tough question. I don't know. I do think he might have not realized the potential some of the potential for an appearance of conflict of interest with the chief judge of the tenth Circuit Judge Tim coverage because he had obviously gone on the court during George W Bush's tenure when recap was involved in vetting judicial candidates and also because the chief judge happens to be also be on Donald Trump's list of potential supreme court justices. I don't know how much that was even in John Roberts mind as he sent the the cavenaugh complaints there..

John Roberts supreme court Brett Cavanaugh John Robert Donald Trump Brad Kavanagh DOJ chief judge Brett Kevin George W Bush Robertson White House partner DC two hands
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

03:00 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Really look at look at how you you you nine divided. Exactly, according to the the presidential parties from from whence you came. But he he went with the liberals, but I'm telling you that it's it wasn't that that momentous because the lower court judge in that case judge j Bibey a we certainly know flaming lib of a tried and true conservative appointed by George W Bush to was head his own inordinate attention, as you know, for many of his own policies when he was in the Bush administration. He he himself had rejected the government's attempts to defend the policy as lawful. A J by be on the ninth circuit said asylum would be become the quote hollowest of rights if foreigners fleeing to the US for fear of persecution face, these new Trump restrictions that condition eligibility on where the would be refugee tried to enter the country and on that kind of criteria criteria that had nothing to do with asylum itself. So would John Roberts was doing as he joined with the other with the four liberals of the court was not it was not adopting any kind of radical view. First of all, they weren't even voting on the merits. You know, it was just does this policy take effect or does it not, you know, it was a a stay motion as you know, and, you know, in effect, he was he was joining a an action that just affirmed the fact that is judged by behead noted below you know, for for six more than six decades supreme court head. The United States it except you refugees fleeing personal danger in their home countries, you know, based on laws treaties everything else that had nothing to do with where they entered the country. You know what I mean? So so you know that that is one caution. I would read into it to say again, these are preliminary nuanced actions were seen from him. And please do not lose sight of where he voted with the majority and wrote the opinion Trump versus why in June to uphold a President Trump's policy banning certain people from Muslim majority countries to things you're saying are worth teasing out the new asylum. Rules is a really good example of the story. John Roberts wants to tell playing out. So we have a district court who stays the original roles and says look plainly the statute does not contemplate what Trump is saying. We can now do then it bounces up to the night circuit J Bibey as you say who's forever going? To be attached to the torture memos rock rib Republican agrees. So that you have judges coming together. Despite who appointed them in this case coming together to strike down something that Trump does and that works and so for.

John Roberts Trump George W Bush j Bibey United States President six decades
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

04:36 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Protect the third branch in in ghetto our democratic system, I think it's very important to him as an institution. Listen, I think we know those sorts of themes were in his Affordable Care Act decision when he went with the liberals, and he has not live. Down that vote in the mind of of conservatives, and that that is one model for where he might go in the near and long future long term future with the court buffeted. So, but I do not think there will be a distinct pattern ideologically, I think he will. I don't think he is predictable on certain cases. I do think he will be nuanced. I think that he'll take each term one at a time but with his eye to the long game and again things like race and religion and probably reproductive rights. He will be more predictable than he would be on some things having to do with executive power and the policies of Donald Trump. So I think that's the single most important thing that I have noted, and I I think we're in agreement is that he's not moving to the left and anybody who thinks John Roberts is drifting, Allah, John Paul Stevens or elevated. Souder even Ella. Anthony Kennedy to the left is overstating it what he is doing is a protecting the reputational interests of the courts and be plotting a long long course, I mean, he may be the chief Justice for decades, and he doesn't have to rush. And then I think what you're saying is he's doing a thing number C. Which is there are areas that he is passionate about and I agree with you racist. Clearly, one of them, suspect reproductive rights. He's not going to defect on those. But on issues where these are not his frontline concerns. And and I'm mindful of the second iteration of the Affordable Care case where he essentially said in when he voted with the liberals like, please don't ask me to carry water for crackpot theories straight. I'm not going to do every single thing that Obama haters asked me to do, and it seems that that's where the fault line. Line will be that. He will be very very consistent on the things that matter deeply to him. But on some of this stuff. It's just not going to be worth it for him to take a reputational hit either personally or for the court. And I wonder if that maps on if I'm correct about that Joan does that map on to the cases he is so far brushed away. Just in the last couple of weeks. You know, he's he's voted not to allow Trump's Justice department, you know, to to stymie the census citizenship case to stymie climate change lawsuit. He does not want to get involved as you said in this Planned Parenthood reimbursement case, it does that map onto what we're describing. Which is these are just not areas of interest for him. I think I think to an extent. But also, I think what he's doing it. He's he's taking small preliminary steps in. I think a good example is the most recent one from right before the holidays when the supreme court rejected by a five four vote. The Trump administration's effort to enforce the new policy at the board at the southern border denying silent people who crossed between ports of entry and entered the country illegally. He was with the liberal justices in this case breath, Kavanagh did go with the the conservatives, but John Roberts was with the liberal justices to to endorse the lower court's decision. Forbidding the policy to take affect because it it likely violates federal law. So the supreme court's action kept in place a lower court injunction while the litigating on the merits of the policy continues. It was not a vote on the merits. I got so many emails saying, wow, you know, he's definitely, you know, this is this is the new John Robert. But I think I think there it was one of those votes that first of all was. Not did not cost too much in terms of his own ideology. First of all it followed by just about a month. His statement that there are no such things as among judges Clinton judges Bush judges Trump judges, and if he had been with the conservative, you know, I think we all would have said, oh, yeah..

Donald Trump Anthony Kennedy John Paul Stevens supreme court John Roberts Trump administration John Robert executive Obama Souder Joan Clinton Justice department Ella Kavanagh Bush
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

02:23 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"And I think that there's a way in which again, this is the language of, you know, once once you get on the court, there is no politics that redounds to the benefit of John Roberts and conservative judges as much as you know, statements that are directly partisan. It sounds so good doesn't it that? You know? No, yes. Call as you know, balls and strikes, but there's no strike zone in the constitution is is a very thin. If thin document that held so much weight in terms of the interpretation of more than two centuries. So it's the rules. There are no hard and fast rules that can only be interpreted if there were all judges would be ruling the same way. And we know they don't. So it's I I remember. Reading George W Bush's account of first meeting with John Roberts in July two thousand five when then candidate John Roberts rolled out, the the idea of the empire metaphor, and George Bush said he was just so struck by it and it sounded so right? And I remember as a reporter covering his hearings into thousand five that became the lead. It became the headline at talk about the statement that has endured since those those confirmation hearings in September two thousand five and because it it sounds great doesn't it, you know, this neutrality idea, but, but we both know that there are very well intentioned judges across the ideological spectrum who believe that they are fairly assessing the law as as it's written in the constitution or federal federal statutes, and they come to different different interpretations. So there there is no. No real answer here. And I don't know if there's a real answer in baseball. But there's probably a real answer in baseball than there is in the law. There's no crying in baseball that. We're going to pause now to hear from our great sponsor of this show. And that is the great courses if you listen to this show, you know, that my own feeling is as we get older. Our love of learning never really stops in it cannot they're still so much. We need to know. And we want to know..

John Roberts baseball George W Bush reporter two centuries
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

03:43 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Joan what you're saying is we can't just look at this on a sort of left right axis or social conservative were movement conservative versus progressive access. This is really now becoming at least in John Roberts mine. A deeply fought conversation about loyalty to the president. And who is in the tank for the president, and that the legitimacy of the court isn't just eroded by. You know, conservatives vote, you know, for guns and against affirmative action. But the laser focus in John Roberts. Mine is the concern that the court becomes a rubber stamp for Trump. And that is the issue. That's animating some of this pushback. And then what? Else? Dalia, you know, if I learned anything from dealing with John Roberts over the past three years as I was working on this book and meeting with him and talking to people close to him is that he has a terrific ability to see out into the future years ahead of what's going to come next. So I think that he's not only worried about exactly what's happening now with President Trump. But I think he's worried about a potential backlash and what happens. What happens down the road when when the Democrats take control which inevitably it some point they will likely take control. What about, you know, this talk of maybe expanding the number of justices on the supreme court. You and I think that is going to go nowhere because I actually have those I feel like oh come on. You know, really, you know, after all these years finally ITO, congress is going to expand the membership of the court just so that. They can water down. You know, the the Trump in a conservative influence. I tend to think it might not go anywhere. But, but the that's talk as you know, people are talking about potentially expanding the number of justices. And I think John Roberts sees it. And he sees other potential moves by the opposite side, not by conservative. But by liberals down the road that could also challenge the supreme court's impartiality enroll in American. I think he's trying to head off that kind of thing too. Seriously. I think that he's I think that that he he is not existing only in this moment. He's he's very good. At at looking ahead. He was a student of history as you know, he was a a history major at Harvard and at one point thirty we'd get a PHD in history. But I think he's he's very shrewd in how he looks to the future. And that anything he did in November in that that statement that he gave to the Associated Press in the next ended too. All reporters didn't capture his thinking for that moment to captured his thinking for what would come next. I'm so glad you said that Joan because I think when he said that an awful lot of folks said this is actually there's a straight line from his balls and strikes stuff at his own hearing. You know, once you put on the black robe, you become this Iraqi leader, but you know, nonpartisan thing and that he was extending that when he made his statements about there's no such thing as a Trump judges and Obama judges, and I think a lot of progressives balked it. Because short sounds like he's defending the institution. But he's also making a normative argument that is really bad for progressive, which is the judges are magic. And that he's been skating on that balls and strikes things for a long time. An awful lot of the Trump nominees who have gotten through on the lower courts make similar statement. You don't mind what I wrote in this polemical. Blog post about Hillary Clinton being the devil. Because once I put on my black robe. I too will be magic..

John Roberts supreme court President Trump Joan president Trump Hillary Clinton Harvard Associated Press Obama Dalia ITO congress three years
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

04:15 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"Not just at you know, a Odom judges, but you know, at all judges on the ninth circuit at any judge who strikes down his travel ban. You know, he he has attacked the court not just the supreme court, but all article three courts in ways, we've never seen. And so we have 'institutionalised John Roberts sort of stepping into a role where he's going to protect the legitimacy of the court at the expense of his own, you know, political predilections there's a third factor, which is the cavenaugh hearings. Which really dramatically I think polarize the country specifically probably activated. A lot of women are using ways in which that third component the acrimony and the ugliness around. The Cavanaugh hearings is also making John Roberts act differently than he might have acted in the month since October. Yes, I think he is exceleron added. His public statements about the court being separated from politics. What many people don't remember is right after Neal Gorsuch was confirmed in April two thousand seventeen John Roberts was speaking on a campus Rensselaer polytechnic up in New York and didn't didn't get a lot of coverage. But he happened to say at that point. He stressed that. While the turmoil related to Justice Scalia is death the Merrick guard. Ireland nomination that went nowhere for a year. And then the final nomination and confirmation of Neal Gorsuch while that was all going on. He made a point to his audience that the court was acting through that time with just eight members in a nonpartisan way taking cases one at a time. You know, he wanted he he conveyed that message. It didn't get as much attention. As the message is referred to later in October of two thousand eighteen after brick Kavanagh's very Avala toll confirmation when he stressed about. How he picked up a line. In fact, from Brett Kavanagh that judges don't align themselves with one side of the aisle or the other that they are neutral, and that got much more attention. And I think he wanted it to get much more attention because obviously the cabinet nomination. Fight was a much much uglier much more public much more divisive than the Gorsuch one. But he has always feared he is set out loud on numerous occasions that he fears that after a heated confirmation battle that the public can't help it take away the idea that any new Justice is going to be driven by politics. Just as the confirmation battle was cloaked in politics. So he he made the statement in October up at the university of Minnesota, I think because of the cabinet nomination. And then I think because of the continued fallout again from what President Trump has said. But also the battle that he's fighting for his his own courts, reputation and stature in America right away. You know before thanksgiving he made that statement about you know, there's no such thing as Obama judge. There's no such thing as Trump judger Bush judge that was not chief Justice. John roberts. Does not do anything spontaneously. He had gotten request to speak to the topic of President Trump's derision of judges from. The Associated Press from our Sherman, which I thought that Mark drew something important out of the chief. But it was not a spontaneous statement in my mind. It was a statement that the chief had been waned for a while. I'd been talking to lower court judges who had been hoping that the chief would speak out against the president because of their own concerns about the judiciary's reputation. But I also know that the chief is has been for longtime concerned about how people might be regarding the supreme court itself, and how politicized it's gotten. You know, he's you'd think of how he voted in the case of Trump versus Hawaii on the president's Muslim-majority band last June..

John Roberts brick Kavanagh President Trump Neal Gorsuch president Trump judger Bush cabinet Justice Scalia Odom Merrick guard Cavanaugh Ireland Obama Hawaii university of Minnesota New York The Associated Press America
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

05:24 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"I'm almost at the point when John Roberts tux about tone or civility. I feel like he's hiding something. I feel like it's a way for him to not talk about something that is demonstrably wrong in problematic, and again, I feel like I'm being unfair. I'm for civility yours for civility were all civil. But it feels like it's part of a cover up and the more John Roberts talks about the need for sued civility in the judiciary. The more it feels like he saying, please don't talk about things that are really problematic. I think we're at a very interesting point with John Roberts as leader of the third branch and questions of how he will manage the conservative majority in what sorts of signals. He wants the public to receive especially in light of two things. One is President Trump's complaint about the judiciary? But the other is the very real fact that this court is divided five four along partisan, political ideological lines. There's no getting around the fact that John Roberts in the other four conservatives were were nominated appointed by Republican presidents in the four liberals who are mainland descent on the big cases now were appointed by democratic presidents. And he even before this moment had put a lot of attention in to argue against the fact that there are. That they do not work as Democrats or Republicans. That was something he was saying from almost the moment he was confirmed in two thousand five and he's heightened that rhetoric in part because of Donald Trump and his complaints against judges. And the fact that he will often tag judge by naming the president to appointed him when he complained about an Obama judge who had ruled against his new asylum policy. Now what I think is happy with the chief, especially with Justice Kennedy's retirement is that he is overseeing court that is more divided along conservative liberal lines. And he is trying to counter a public perception of partisanship of political motivations and ideology that really is not based so much on law, but on more political inclinations, so I think the kinds of. Statements that we're hearing from him respond again in part to what Donald Trump said. But mainly to send a signal about the court. He's overseeing when he says we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges Bush judges are Clinton judges. He's talking about the perception, I believe of his own five to four court, not just the way Donald Trump has described this court, and I think that he's been trying to counter this for a while. And you know, he he himself. I think in some of his recent actions in votes is trying to send a signal that he cannot be as predictable as he might have been, you know, for years he had to dance around Anthony Kennedy as this centrist jurists whose vote he needed whose vote he had to. Woo. But who also essentially gave the court some cover because Anthony Kennedy. Nineteen eighty-eight. Ronald Reagan Republican appointee was not predictably conservative, and I'll cases especially not on social policy cases. You know? He he cast a key vote to uphold affirmative action on couch campuses. He was the voice of gay rights and of new right to same sex marriage. So he just as Kennedy embodied the notion that there is nothing that you can't describe someone as a Republican judger democratic judge without Kennedy. The court is much more divided. Exactly along those lines and John Roberts is now the the median, and he is no centrists conservative with a record of joining the left on closely watched social policy disputes as Kennedy was and the instincts of John Roberts who rose in Washington as he served Republican administrations have always rested with the right wing. But now, he's he's. Much more in a position to be torn between his ideological instincts. That have been built all these years from when he first served his lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration in his very real institutional concerns about the third branch in particular about the supreme court. So you've mentioned two really important things. You've said, you know, a a lot of this is responsive to the fact that for the first time in our lifetimes, we have a five four Republican appointed democrat appointed perfectly ideologically split court. There's no buddy in play. That's one thing. And the second thing is that Donald Trump is just in ways we've never seen from the president just battering away..

Donald Trump John Roberts Justice Kennedy president Ronald Reagan Republican Obama supreme court Ronald Reagan Bush Washington
"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

04:31 min | 3 years ago

"john roberts" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick

"The instincts of John Roberts who rose in Washington as he served Republican administrations have always rested with the right wing. But now he's much more in a position to be torn between his ideological instincts in his very real institutional concerns about the third branch in particular about the supreme court. Hi, and welcome back to amicus slates podcast about the supreme court and the law and the rule of law and the rule of law and the Trump era I'm with week. I covered those things for slate. And hey, it's twenty nineteen and the government is partially shut down. But the courts remain open actually, with the exception of the immigration courts, which have already delayed most of their hearings. Ironically, contributing to the already massive backlog of delayed immigration cases, which is the thing. We're fighting about immigration now, we're seeing cases that are going to be rescheduled. In the thousands new cases will be delayed twenty nineteen your couple days in and your name already is Ernie twenty nineteen also opened with chief Justice John Roberts and his annual New Year's state of the judiciary report it always sneaks in with the new year. This year was almost more notable for what it did not say it certainly did not talk about. Donald Trump, and it did not explicitly say a lot about the thing it addressed which was sexual misconduct in the article three courts. Indeed chief Justice Roberts who is determined to keep the court out of the public eye in these roiling and very dramatic months post. Brad Kavanagh is actually quickly becoming the most interesting member of the high court for what he doesn't say. So we've now seen him in the last few months with a series of votes to Batta way big cases intervening in a sealed secret conflict that's coming out of the molar probe. Who is John Roberts? Is he evolving into a centrist is he taking on Trump himself in his own twinkly eyed, understated way, how did this balls and strikes guy? Become the most intriguing understated man in America next to. To the other intriguing. Understated men in America, we like to call Bob Muller. Nobody has watched John Roberts more carefully in recent years than Joan biskupic. She covers the court for CNN and her new book the chief the life and turbulent times of chief Justice John Roberts will come out. This March Joan has been covering the supreme court for over twenty five years. She's written seminal biographies of several of the justices. She is a legal analyst for CNN and one of my dear friends and colleagues at the supreme court. Joan welcome back to advocate. Thank you. Dahlia so Joan as I just noted in his state of the judiciary speech on Monday. The chief Justice quite determined -ly addressed and didn't address reports of sexual harassment in the judiciary. This is an issue. He raised really forcefully in his speech last year. He seems to be accepting the findings of working group that he convened to analyze the. Problem. He says, I agree. There's more than one or two I selected incidents. I agree. This is not just about law clerks. But then he seems to kind of downplay the larger problem in the judiciary you reported on this extensively last year the number of complaints about judges. And in fact, he said some of the worst conduct was quote, incivility or disrespect. He did ask the working group to stay on task to keep looking at this. But is he affect just telling us all it's time to move on. You picked up on exactly what I picked up on Dalia the idea that he minimized the kind of harassment or employee abuse that takes place in the nation's courthouses using the word incivility disrespect does tend to minimize what might be going on. So I thought that was notable. I also thought it was notable that he stressed how what happens in the federal judiciary compares. Favorably to other government and private sector workplaces..

chief Justice John Roberts supreme court Donald Trump Joan biskupic analyst harassment Brad Kavanagh CNN America Washington Dalia Batta Ernie Bob Muller Dahlia twenty five years