17 Burst results for "Jordan Rubin"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law. A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge. Tell us a little about the facts of the case. Peter views with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts. My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me as Bloomberg long reporter Jordan Rubin. And analysis of important legal issues, cases in headlines. The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule. Is this lawsuit for real? Bloomberg law with June Grasso. From Bloomberg radio. Welcome to the Bloomberg law show, I'm June Grasso, ahead in this hour. Hermes wins the first NFT trademark trial. The U.S. crackdown on trade sanction violators is turning to the art world. The J&J bankruptcy ruling creates legal uncertainty for the Texas two step and Priscilla Presley is challenging her daughter's will. Wow, cool bag. You like it? Hello, I'm a girl. It's a purse. Not just a purse. It's a birkin bag. I went to school a guy named ricken. I don't think this is the same birkin. Oh. Rory Gilmore may not have known about the ultimate status symbol, but her grandmother did. Oh, my God. A birkin bag. You've heard of it? Of course. That's a very nice purse. Oh. Maybe I shouldn't use it. Oh, no. A birkin bag is meant to be used. And seen. The iconic birkin bags range in price from 12,000 to more than $300,000, and there's a 6 year waiting list to purchase one. So luxury brand Hermes went to trial to protect its valuable rights to the birkin trademark, suing an artist for selling meta birkin NFTs, digital images depicting the birkin but covered in colorful cartoonish fur. The artist mason Rothschild claimed the meta Perkins were works of art and protected speech under the First Amendment, but the jury disagreed, finding the NFTs were more like consumer products, subject to strict trademark laws with no First Amendment protections. Here to look behind the verdict is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partnered cat and mutch and rosenman. Terry the jury found Rothschild guilty of trademark infringement dilution and cyber squatting. Do we know what test they use to come to that decision? Well, the judge specifically asked the jury to determine whether or not the meta birkins produced by mister Ross child or artistic works are consumer products. And they answered that question saying that they did not view them as artwork they viewed them as consumer products. And so we have to assume that they at least considered the Rogers test because one of the requirements of the Rogers test is that it be an expressive work IE artistic work. It would have been rejected out of hand. There's this blurry line between art and commercial products. So the jury determined that NFTs are more akin to commercial products. Does that have any impact on future cases? Not really the finding of the jury is a fact finding. We will findings are left to the judge to the court. The jury only makes fact findings and the factual circumstances change from case to case. This is particularly true in trademark law where you can have widely different facts producing widely different results. So that finding by the jury is limited to this specific case against mister Ross child. So people have been looking at this as a case that had the potential to clarify how trademark law applies to NFTs. Does it do that? Well, I don't think a single case unless it happens to be in front of the Supreme Court is going to clarify the law in this area. What this case does do is lay down a marker on behalf of trademark owners. It points in the direction of findings that the metaverse is subject to the landmass U.S. trademark laws. And it will encourage other trademark owners to now bring suit to enforce their rights in the metaverse. I am aware of two clients of ours who have been thinking of bringing losses and simply waiting to see how this came out. This will encourage them. Now, the other thing this case does is that lays the foundation for appellate decisions. So now there is a concrete verdict in a case that can go up on appeal and we can see what the appellate courts think of the application trademark laws to NFTs. Yeah, so Rothschild said what happened today was wrong. What happened today will continue to happen if we don't continue to fight. This is far from over, and his attorneys said that they'll take every legal avenue that they have. What are the legal avenues that they have? The very first option that the defense has here is to file a motion with judge right off asking him to set aside the jury verdict and to grant judgment to the defense on the legal theories that are presented in the case. This is going to be challenging for the defense. It's something they will do. They have to do. But basically at the motion it is miss stage that he was uncertain as to whether or not there was sufficient factual predicate here or the defendant to take advantage of the so called Rogers test and he wanted the jury to give him some advice on that and that jury gave him advice. They said, yes, there's not a factual predicate here. This is not an expressive work. It's not art. It's a consumer product. And the Rogers test does not apply to consumer products at least so we think. The Rogers test, which was from out this court's second circuit, expressly says that First Amendment protection extends to the use of celebrity names in expressive works where the use of the name is relevant to the work and it's not intentionally misleading and here that key element that the jury says is missing is whether or not this is an artistic work. So I think they will lose the post trial motions unless you want to simply disregard the jury. And they'll take it up then on appeal to the second circuit. And this becomes pretty important because the second circuit is the author of the Rogers test, which the defense heavily relies upon here. It is also one of the most important ballot courts in the nation with respect to trademark law. And that's where we will really get some guidance going forward into the future. The second circuit, affirms the verdict here and says yes, this always trademark infringement. That's going to really be very influential across the rest of the United States, even though the second circuit per view is limited to New York and Connecticut. And as we've
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law. A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge. Tell us a little about the facts of the case. Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts. My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me as Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin. And analysis of important legal issues, cases in headlines. The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule. Is this lawsuit for real? Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio. Welcome to the Bloomberg long show. I'm June grosso, ahead in this hour. Landmark legislation for same sex marriage may become law in the lame duck session of Congress. And Texas intends to send military armored personnel carriers to the border, escalating the battle over border and Forstman. Last week, 12 Senate Republicans joined Democrats to advance landmark legislation to provide federal protections for same sex marriages, putting it on track to become law as a last act of bipartisanship in the lame duck Congress. Right now the right to same sex marriage is the law, but only because of a 2015 Supreme Court decision which many fear is now in jeopardy. Why? Because justice clarence Thomas told us so in the Dobbs decision which took away the constitutional right to abortion. Joining me as a leading expert on marriage equality and LGBTQ rights, Catherine Frankie. She is director of Columbia law school, center for gender and sexuality law. Start by telling us what's motivating this push to get a same sex marriage bill passed. Well, I think there are a few things. One is that many members of Congress were overwhelmed by calls from their constituents who were married and in same sex couples. Who were terrified after the dots decision that their kids might be taken away that their marriages might be dissolved and what's interesting is the respect for marriage act really came from within Congress itself as a response to constituent calls. It didn't come from some of the gay rights organizations around the country. So they really were trying to respond to the fear that they were hearing from their constituents who were afraid that their marriages would be dissolved in their kids taken from them. And tell us what in that job's decision was it justice clarence Thomas's concurring opinion that led to that fear or was it the decision itself? Well, you can always count on clarence Thomas to say that the quiet part out loud, but also the loud part even more loudly. And certainly there's nothing in the majorities opinion that would hinder the court from taking the next step of finding broad rights to contraception is nowhere secured in the constitution or the same with same sex marriage, notwithstanding justice Kavanaugh trying to lower the temperature a little bit in his concurrence and saying, oh no, no, no. We're just deciding abortion today, actually I'm not sure the other members of the majority hold that view. So that's really what frightened everyone was justice Thomas kind of underscoring what the potential for the jobs decision might hold for other issues around sex and sexuality. I explain what the obergefell decision did. Well, burger style justice Kennedy writing for majority of the court found that there was a constitutional right for same sex couples to marry if they were otherwise qualified for a marriage license. And he did so really as a matter of dignity. He's landed the decision, not in the explicit text of the constitution, but in the kind of spirit of the constitution, to shun same sex couples from the institution of marriage, humiliates those couples. And it humiliates and frightens their children. For kids who are in families with same sex parents, that those parents can't marry, also sent the message to those children that their parents are somehow lesser than or not as dignified as their friends at school who have parents who are at different sex relationships and can marry. So obergefell said, just as a kind of matter of constitutional fairness and dignity, same sex couples should be allowed to marry and states can not ban same sex couples from getting marriage licenses. Now, what would this legislation do? The legislation would not go all the way of obergefell. So if the Supreme Court next term or two years from now decides to overrule obergefell, the respect for marriage act won't completely fix the problem. What it does do is it says states have to respect valid marriages from other states. So right now there are 35 states that have laws on the books that ban same sex marriage. Those laws are not enforceable because of the obergefell decision, but if the court reverses obergefell, what happens to those laws in those 35 states. So in more than half the country, same sex couples couldn't marry, but they could travel to say New York, California, or other states that do allow same sex marriage, get legally married and then go back to their home state, and their home state would have to respect those marriages. Now, what the respect for marriage act does specifically, it says, is those states that won't marry same sex couples or interracial couples can't refuse to recognize the validity of their marriages if the reason that they're refusing to allow those folks to marry in their home state is because of the sex, race, national origin, or ethnicity, of the people in those marriages. So it also reaches interracial or inter ethnic marriages as well beyond same sex marriages. So, you know, we have a long history in this country also of banning interracial marriages and so the idea of this statute is to make sure that those laws don't come back in this more conservative era we're living in. Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show, I'll continue this conversation with Columbia law school professor Catherine franke. We'll talk about the status of the same sex marriage bill, and some things a legislation would not do. Also, Republican senators outcry about the bill, and later in the show, Texas intends to send military armored personnel carriers to the border, escalating the battle over border and forcement. You're listening to Bloomberg. At Bloomberg surveillance, the
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Some support for read at the argument, including from justice Barrett in some ways, she was seemingly agreeing with at least part of his claim, which could be a good sign for him. The one thing that would only get him potentially to forge justices when he would need 5, and even then you just don't really know. But I do think Reed needs to get over that 6 three hurdle. I think that that's possible in the case, but we just won't know until we have the decision. So explain to me, what kind of liberty interest was Thomas looking for? Isn't it a liberty interest to have a fair trial? Right, so to kind of back up with that. And again, the interest is the denial of testing and the fact that the state process was unfair from Reed's view. That's the crux of his claim. And that the person who was doing the denial, which is also an important part of Thomas's point, the question of who exactly is depriving him of that interest. In this case, Reed is suing the district attorney who controls the evidence that could be tested. So that's a little bit more of a potentially interesting question just in terms of who is the one depriving someone of that right. Again, this is really something that Thomas was kind of off on his own with. And I think is unlikely to dominate the decision, at least based on the arguments. So that's really the issue there that Thomas was getting at. Just talking about the case in general, he wants the belt tested that the woman was strangled with. And the state forensic witnesses have they changed their opinion? Yes, so that's part of Reed's claim. And just to back up and maybe give a bit more of the factual context here, the victim's wife was a police officer at the time who read as brought evidence for saying that he knew that the police officer knew about an affair that Reed was having with the victim. Stacy sites in this becomes a bit of a he said he said, although there is evidence brought forth from other supporting it now. We obviously can't ask the victim because she is dead, but really it's a matter of new evidence coming forth and looking at it in a new way, which often happens in the post conviction context, not just potentially absolving read, but pointing the finger at this alternative perpetrator Jimmy fennell, the former police officer who I should add was later convicted after being charged with sexual assault of a woman on duty in a case unrelated to this one. So that's something else that read is pointing to. So the facts sort of scream out here, but it's a technical issue for the Supreme Court. Exactly. It's going to come down to this technical issue in a way that I think is fairly understandable compared to some of the cases that the justice are usually taking on, but nonetheless, still potentially yours and even more significant issue hiding behind it. So you've covered a lot of these cases involving death row inmates and are the justices, the conservative justices, perhaps, concern that inmates are just trying to postpone their executions. That's certainly what they've said in a number of cases. And that issue, I wouldn't say that that dominated this argument, but it did come up, even if it wasn't really directly relevant. And that in itself shows how much of a concern it is from part of the court and from a state like Texas. And so as I see it in any case being brought by a death row prisoner, that's the hurdle that they need to get around, no matter what the question presented is in a case whether it's statute of implementations or something else. I think in reality that is what is driving a majority of the court in these cases. And so in this case, someone like Reed needs not just really to prevail on the legal issue in this case, but to convince the court that he's not just doing something in a sort of untoward or underhanded way in the majority's view Said. courts have a duty to confront racial animus in the system and lamented that the court didn't do something with this case. So Jordan, are there other death row inmate cases coming up this term? There isn't any one case that I think is really being watched in that way. But the thing about these death penalty cases is that they're often coming up on the emergency docket or the shadow docket as it's called. So a lot of times what's prompting a case to come to the Supreme Court is the setting of an execution date. And so there certainly are execution dates that are set across the country. We're seeing we have seen that kind of schedule fill up, especially as the pandemic has waned. And some executions have been postponed, especially on the state level. So that's really what I think is going to be driving this litigation anytime that there's an execution set. You can expect litigation coming up to the court on a quick basis, although that's not necessarily something that's forecasted ahead of time. And so people like myself just have to be ready for that. So I don't know if you can answer this question, but it seems to me just looking generally at the cases as they come up that usually the death row inmate fails. Oh, absolutely. There's no question about that. Sometimes the question to my mind is really, is there even going to be a dissent in the case? And so it's certainly I think an uphill battle for any claim coming from death row for reasons that we discussed earlier about the court seeing that through inmates simply wanting to delay the inevitable as opposed to raising a meritorious legal claim. Thanks so much, Jordan. That's Jordan Rubin, Bloomberg law reporter. In other
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law. A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge. Tell us a little about the facts of the case. Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts. My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me as Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin. And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines. The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule. Is this lawsuit for real? Bloomberg law with June Grasso. From Bloomberg radio. Welcome to Bloomberg law show, I'm Lydia Wheeler, and I'm Kimberly Robinson. We're in for June grosso, coming up on the show, we'll discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's latest COVID action and the increasing use of the court's so called shadow docket. Reversed, Bloomberg law reporter Andrea vittorio joins us to talk about the new extended reality experiences that technology companies are promising in the metaverse. And the privacy pitfalls that could come with collecting more data from users. Andrea, thanks for being here. Can you start off by explaining what an extended reality is and what types of technology it typically includes? Sure. So I asked this question myself in writing this story because there are many different kinds of reality and there's sort of regular reality on one side and then virtual reality and the other and that's where there's a whole virtual world. You have a virtual version of yourself and you can participate in virtual activities like games or events like concerts or shopping. So that's sort of what we think of when we talk about the metaverse. There are also versions in between where you can have holograms imposed on real life or you can see digital characters like Pokémon go. In your everyday activities. So the virtual realities that we are talking about can mean a lot different things. And so what are the digital experiences that extended reality companies are promising users. It doesn't seem like we're talking about just games here, right? Right. There are a lot of potential applications, gaming is definitely one of them, so is learning. There are schools that are experimenting with virtual reality for students. There's also corporate training that can happen in virtual reality. You can help firefighters or doctors learn their craft just by practicing an additional environment. And there are just a lot of different use cases that we kind of are seeing explored, but could broaden out theme parks, travel, shopping, there's a lot going on there in the metaverse. So what kinds of data are companies collecting from people who use these sorts of extended reality devices? And is any of it sensitive information? The data collected can depend on the device or how you're using it. But there are a lot of potential collection points like when you wear a headset can gather information about how your head is moving, what you're looking at, you can sometimes hold devices in your hands, that will track your hands are moving or what size they are even. So these are all considered pretty personal pieces of information because they really varied by person and can even sort of a mountain to identifying the person if you have enough information about them and how they move and what they look like. So advocates are concerned just about the physical characteristics or traits that are being gathered about people as they use these devices. Write it in your story that you recently wrote, you refer to tracking these movements as a kind of thumbprint of your moments, which I thought was really interesting. And I'm wondering, do companies have to get permission from users before they can collect this kind of data and if so, how do they usually do that? Right. So permission is kind of interesting concept like when you're in a virtual world and you're interacting with different people or places and there's sort of different touch points where you would need permission. So there's sort of like a base level of permission of using a device and creating an account that then you play a game or some other sort of activity in the virtual world. You're interacting with another business potentially and so they would have to potentially ask for permission to gather information about you or if you go and buy something in the metaverse, then maybe you have to agree to privacy policy of the merchant selling you something. So permission to gather information on some information could be many layers in this virtual world. Are there any laws in place either at the state or the federal level to protect this kind of digital data? So far, we have been thinking about privacy laws in virtual worlds just sort of as applying existing laws to this space and so in Europe, there's a rule called the general data protection regulation that would probably apply these general privacy rights to different platforms regardless of where you are. So it would apply in the metaverse as well as just sort of on a website. But then in the U.S. it might kind of depend on different state laws since there's no national privacy law here. So there's still a lot of questions around how do these laws apply and especially how to location based laws apply when I might be in one physical place using a device, but I might be going somewhere else in the world in my device. So does that change where the laws of that place would apply to me or whether the laws where I am, physically apply to me, so there's still a lot of policy questions around how existing laws might fit or if we need to have new all written specifically for this space. Well, thanks so much. That's Bloomberg law reporter, Andrea vittorio. You're listening to Bloomberg law. Next up, we'll bring in University of Texas law professor Stephen blatt to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's COVID rulings. I'm Kimberly Robinson, and I'm Lydia Wheeler. This is Bloomberg.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge Tell us a little about the facts of the case Peter views with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy Carole joining me as Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases and headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June Grasso From Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg law show I'm June grosso A head in this hour the nation grapples with the tragic mass shooting at a Texas elementary school and gun control The Supreme Court finds that most circuit courts have been making up a rule in arbitration and the defense begins in the theranos trial part two A vigilant Yuval Texas Wednesday night to remember the 19 children and two teachers killed by an 18 year old in the deadliest school shooting in a decade another in a string of mass shootings that have rocked the country And for people across the country from the president of the United States to the coach of the Golden State Warriors there was sorrow frustration and anger at yet another senseless shooting Why Why are we willing to live with this carnage Why don't we keep letting this happen We're in God's name is our backbone Now we have children murdered at school When are we going to do something I'm tired I'm so tired of getting up here and offering condolences to the devastated families that are out there Joining me is Columbia law school professor Jeffrey fagan This tragic shooting at an elementary school in Texas happened just ten days after another tragedy at a supermarket in Buffalo but should we continue to be shocked at these shootings when even modest restrictions on guns are not tolerated in this country Well no I think the past is the best prologue for the future And unless the law of change restricting access to the kind of weaponry that's been used pretty much in almost exclusively in the last I'd say dozens of school shootings then they're going to keep happening The refrain from gun rights groups and in fact Oklahoma Republican senator Jim inhofe just said this is that no legislation could stop shootings like this Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teenagers And it's a fairly recent trend because other types of debt for our children and young adults serve the declining but this one seems to be going up And it's unreasonable to expect pattern that's existed fairly steadily over the past 15 20 years going back to Columbine to cease because we pass a law is unreasonable and unrealistic Whether we can reduce the number of school shootings and then gradually bring them to a fairly small number through passage of legislation that would restrict access to firearms that have very little value other than to kill other humans will be a major step towards reducing the carnage in the schools Should there be tougher security in schools I mean my daughter went to public high school in New York City more than a decade ago and the kids had to go through metal detectors every day There were metal detectors in school now and mayor Adams has just talked about the very high rate of seizures of weapons in the schools in the past several months But he was also very careful to say that guns are a very very small fraction of the weapons that were seized in school through metal detectors So there's an incredible proliferation of weapons and firearms in the hands of people who just don't have the developmental capacities and the ability to control their impulses Who are using guns And the availability of the weapon seems to control the decision making about whether to use it So for example we did research and we asked kids who were involved in gun violence Several years ago we said tell us about the certain demands under which you choose to use a gun in the circumstances when you choose to not use a gun even though you could use a gun And they'd soon all said we used a gun when we believed that the other guy had it done And so there's a certain amount of strategic thinking that goes on when young people are studying whether or not to use a gun If we're talking about school shootings the availability of a weapon that can vary efficiently and effectively carry out whatever the goals are of school shooter Or a church or if we think about someone in springs in Texas or people in a grocery store in Buffalo New York The availability of a weapon that can do that job makes it almost irresistible when somebody has the impulse to do that And it's a fairly simple axiom If there were no firearms of this nature available there would be far far fewer school students And that's what the Republicans don't get They say well you know the statute has to be able to eliminate this No a statute has to be able to reduce it and then eventually other measures come in a reinforcing of the statute that would help to eliminate the problem Are there other measures that schools should be taking for security Because it doesn't look like there's going to be passage of a law anytime soon At least a federal law No there certainly won't be You're not even a background check law It's hard to say about what schools can do But all of the measures that I've heard from arming teachers to employing retired police officers to establishing sort of prison like perimeters around the school They may be effective in reducing school shootings but there's nothing that we understand and when somebody wants to commit an act of violence which is displacement It might simply displace those acts of violence in schools to places like shopping malls which have been shot up grocery stores which we know will be shot up And so you have to worry about the fact that somebody with that motivation will simply substitute another target for a school if they can't shoot up the school This is the reason why we might want to think about reducing the access to those weapons of mass destruction as opposed to simply hardening the target And what do you say to supporters of gun rights who say you can infringe on my Second Amendment rights Second Amendment talks about firearms It doesn't talk about which types of firearms We can preserve the rights under the Second Amendment but we can also reduce access to firearms which have very limited purposes and very high lethality One can go out and purchase a rocket propelled grenade launcher And that's a weapon Some interpretations of hell are in the current constitutional right might say that's just simply a weapon that's used in self defense and takes somebody's driving a tank into your living room Thanks That's professor Jeffrey fagan of Columbia law school Coming up next what the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in a New York case means for gun rights This is Bloomberg Burden The NBA playoff action is nonstop at DraftKings sports book an official sports betting partner of the NBA This week new customers can bet just $5 on any team to win and get $150.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge Tell us a little about the facts of the case Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me as Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases and headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg law show I'm June Rosso a head in this hour the Reaper cautions of reversing roe V wade on the economy and on the rights of transgender people And celebrity chef Mario Batali acquitted of sexual misconduct charges after a swift trial Come off has not met its burden to the degree that's required by law So mister battalion attorney fuller and Caruso if you could rise I'm going to find the defendant not guilty to the charge of indecent assault and battery Mario Batali was found not guilty of indecent assault and battery on Tuesday following a two day trial in which the celebrity chef waved his right to have a jury decide his fate in the criminal case The accuser testified that Batali groped her while taking a selfie at a Boston bar in 2017 We.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"On Bloomberg Market holiday in Japan so no trading in Japanese equities or in U.S. sovereign debt in Tokyo the nikkei weaker by 7 tenths of 1% Shanghai composite down two tenths of 1% On the positive side the cost is higher by 7 tenths of 1% and in Sydney the ASX 200 better by 8 tenths of 1% The dollar is weaker right now with the Bloomberg dollar spot index down two tenths of 1% Global news 24 hours a day on air and on Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than 120 countries This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg law A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge Tell us a little about the facts of the case Either views with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me as Bloomberg long reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases in headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June Grasso from Bloomberg radio Welcome to Bloomberg long show I'm June brosso ahead in this hour One of the most high profile white collar prosecutions in years The Supreme Court allows a selective high school diversity policy and Biden's latest judicial nominations On.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Law with June gros from Bloomberg radio A civil rights lawsuit against an officer who failed to give Miranda warnings led the Supreme Court to examine the nature of its landmark ruling this week R Miranda warnings a constitutional right Joining me is Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin When we hear about Miranda warnings we're usually talking about a criminal case and whether something will be admitted into evidence but this is a civil case Tell us how it came about So the question here is whether the failure to give Miranda warnings can give rise to a federal civil rights lawsuit Now for such a lawsuit to go forward there needs to have been a violation of a constitutional right And so that's what raises the question is whether this Miranda right is a constitutional right or something else And that's been a long simmering question and that was the focus of this argument And just tell us about the facts a little bit what happened Sure So parents Tycho was accused of a sexual assault and he was acquitted of that at trial during this trial There was a statement introduced against him which he says is a coerced false confession And so after he's acquitted Tycho sues the officer Carlos Vega the one who procured this statement from him saying that he violated his rights and failing to give these warnings which in turn were introduced into evidence at his criminal trial As you said Miranda was subject to a lot of criticism in the 80s and 90s and a decision by chief justice rehnquist put that to rest So tell us about that decision Wait so that was really interesting that Dickerson case in 2000 as you mentioned rehnquist and other conservatives had long been critical of not just Miranda but it was really a part of the series of these Warren court era criminal procedure decisions part of this so called criminal procedure revolution And so these really became the opinions that were not liked on the conservative side and really enemies to be taken down over time And so that didn't wind up happening exactly with Miranda in a 2000 case Dickerson rank was actually wrote an opinion a 7 two opinion effectively upholding Brando and he obviously could have disagreed with it And so really the question in this case now is what exactly did Dickerson mean in some subsequent cases as well And so it's not just the fact that rehnquist didn't overturn Miranda in that Dickerson case But what exactly was he doing there So that's really where a lot of this case is going to be decided Because the central question you mentioned whether Miranda warnings are a constitutional right What were the justices concerns and the rehnquist opinion What did they say it meant And so really delving into the specifics of that Dickerson opinion by rehnquist it was pointed out by some of the more conservative justices that rehnquist was careful with his words and didn't exactly refer to Miranda as a constitutional right He referred to it having constitutional underpinning sort of a constitutional essence to it If you will but specifically not saying constitutional right and that distinction could wind up being very important in this case because remember the question is is Miranda a constitutional right that can give rise to such a federal civil rights suit like the one that mister Kiko is trying to bring here The chief justice clerk for rehnquist what did he say about the opinion and rehnquist intention So I found Roberts to be interesting at this argument because he said a couple of things that I really think went both ways So on the one hand he Roberts pointed out that if it wasn't for the constitution you wouldn't have this Miranda ruling and you wouldn't be able to keep unwarranted concessions out of evidence So he asked Vega's lawyer why isn't this a right the secured by the constitution And so that type of question could lead one to think that well maybe Roberts is thinking along the lines of the plaintiff wanting to be able to sue here But on the other hand Roberts told the lawyer for the plaintiff how rank was was someone who was careful with his words And so in the Dickerson case how rank list pointed out or at least didn't explicitly say Miranda is a constitutional right He talked about constitutional underpinnings constitutional basis And so Roberts who clears her rehnquist said things that could have gone both ways that the arguments but if his words to Chico's lawyer are to be representative of how he views the case then he's someone who may be doesn't seem Iran as this constitutional right which can give rise to a federal civil rights suit Did you get a feeling for how many justices might agree with the chief justice and how many justices might not So I think that it was fair to say that some comments from Avon and Barrett were also along the lines of the chief justice An interesting part of the argument to me was in exchange between the deputies lawyer and justice Thomas because the deputy is pointing to a case that came after Dickerson called Chavez where a plurality of the court meaning less than a majority effectively endorsed the view that Miranda is an a constitutional right exactly and is more of what's called this prophylactic rule of preventative rule not a constitutional right per se And so at the arguments the deputies lawyer brings that up right at the beginning at a time when it's justice Thomas's time for questioning And so you might think justice Thomas who is actually the one who wrote that plurality opinion in Chavez might be wanting to along with that but it was interesting to me that Thomas and self pointed out he couldn't get a majority in that case So Thomas tells the lawyer I don't know how much that does for you And so that's not to say that if Thomas can get more people on board this time that maybe now can accomplish what he wasn't able to accomplish in the Chavez case And so he just might given changes in the court between 2003 and now And so whether that's exactly going to happen I think will remain to be seen but it's certainly a possibility That's what happens when you're on the court this long You see changes as the court in the past been cutting back on these kinds of suits against police officers under this Oh I think that's certainly fair to say as a general matter As Kavanaugh put it at the argument in some ways they're looking to not extend precedents And so whether someone sees that as even cutting back on them or at least not extending them it certainly fair to say that no precedents are going to be extended at the court but certainly in these types of suits I think it's fair to say that the court certainly hasn't been in the business of expanding them generally I don't know if this case is necessarily going to fall into that category It's really going to be interesting to see how it turns out but you have to think that anybody who's trying to bring a claim like Tico in this case or defending the type of claim that Zika is bringing because it was actually the deputy who petitioned for sure here that they.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Bloomberg quicktake powered by more than 2700 journalists and analysts in more than a 120 countries In the newsroom I'm do these Pellegrini This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg law A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge Tell us a little about the facts of the case Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy Carole joining me as Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases and headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg law show I'm June Grasso I had in this hour why the government suffered a stunning defeat in a case of domestic terrorism Oklahoma makes it a felony to perform an abortion and Texas arrests a woman for murder over an abortion A guilty verdict for the only Goldman bang for to go on trial in the one MDB scandal and the Boy Scouts beat the girl scouts in court but it's only round one He's always been an adventurer at heart That's why I can't wait to be a scout Scouting will show me how to use bravery Trustworthiness loyalty and kindness To become a person I'm proud to be Because there's no one way to explore the world in my way is in the scouts It became just about scouts and scouting.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge Tell us a little about the facts of the case Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me as Bloomberg long reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases and headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg law show I'm June Grasso I had this hour The Senate passes a landmark me too Bill over forced workplace arbitration And how COVID vaccination battles are figuring in custody cases Parents have had a lot to worry about during COVID whether to get their children vaccinated send them to school masked or unmasked Those worries for parents can turn into a laundry list of conflicts for separated or divorced parents to fight about Joining me as Lois Lieberman a partner in the matrimonial and family law practice at blank Rome I want to start with vaccinations because it is such a big issue such a political issue How often does it come up in custody fights Well before COVID occurred The time that we would see vaccinations come up is when a parent became nervous thinking their child might be more prone to autism by virtue of vaccination Those were few and far between but those occurred every once in a while and we would get into a situation If the school requires a child to be vaccinated and the child was going to go to that school ultimately the court would usually unless a pediatrician was going to come in to give some medical evidence as to why that child may be more prone or there was some evidence regarding fame The court if that involved would give one parent medical decision making authority over that quote decision We had some other custodial fights Regarding religious exemption but those changed a bit when it became I think there was a change in the public health law which again the schools were requiring and were not agreeing to this religious exemption But COVID has opened up a whole new kind of hotbed of discussion with respect to vaccinating young children So let's start with the basic the mother let's say the mother the mother wants the child to be vaccinated the father doesn't want the child to be vaccinated Does a court usually get involved in that and what kind of factors does the judge weigh If the court gets involved they're looking at the best interests of the child That's what's supposed to be the basis upon the court's decision And if mom wants to get the child vaccinated and dad doesn't the court is going to want to delve into what the reasoning behind dad not wanting the child to be vaccinated So if we talk about COVID most recently there was a decision in December that judge dollinger and Monroe county rendered And this was a father who was a scientist somebody who was a professor at Rochester institute of technology who was vaccinated himself is older daughters were vaccinated and all he wanted to do was to wait a bit since he was concerned about his 11 year old daughter being vaccinated wanted to see a bit more data In that particular decision the court made a determination that the CDC was recommending that the child should be vaccinated And therefore there was no point to waiting And that it was in the best interest of the child to become vaccinated and therefore gave the mom the decision making authority to make that important decision for the child's health safety and welfare Do these decisions vary based on whether you're in a blue state where vaccination rates are high and there's less political pressure to be unvaccinated or in a red state where vaccination rates are low No that's a very interesting question June I've seen decisions in Chicago I've seen decisions in LA with respect to this So I can't tell you that in like West Virginia or in Texas whether or not this conflict whether the judges are getting involved more as a political measure because clearly you can see that there is a feeling that this obviously decision is kind of politicized What to a certain extent you're kind of recognizing from the language in this decision that the courts are going kind of beyond well on just following what the CDC says that many jurists are getting kind of on their soapbox a bit to talk about the greater good or the need for us to all be able to commit to getting vaccinated to blow back this pandemic so to speak But it's a really good question So I can't tell you whether or not in the red states are we seeing a difference of opinion with respect to this conflict Let's talk about the situation where the vaccinated parent wants to stop visitation with the unvaccinated parent How does that work So what we're seeing is that the court is limiting in sometimes suspending the unvaccinated parent parental access under the guise of saying they are protecting the child health safety and welfare in the Chicago case that jurists went so far as to say that parent had to be vaccinated yet in New York We've seen decisions where while the judges language may have been a little bit more political They basically said you can see the kid if you take a test Even if you don't want to get vaccinated you need to take a negative COVID test to show.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge Tell us a little about the facts of the case Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts My guest is former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me as Bloomberg long reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases and headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June grosso From Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg long show I'm June brosso I had this hour The Supreme Court deals a blow to black voting power The federal hate crimes trial of ahmaud Arbery's killers Is the NFL facing a reckoning over race And the first and most likely only trial in one of the biggest financial scandals in Wall Street history 28.7 million in gross commissions all from peak sheets stock boys There's the financing of the film The Wolf of Wall Street the $200 million superyacht the purchase of paintings by Monet van Gogh and Basquiat $8 million in jewelry extravagant parties all from the billions of dollars bankers allegedly looted from the Malaysian fund known as one MDB an international embarrassment for Goldman Sachs And now trial begins for the only person in all of Goldman Sachs to stand trial in the U.S. for the scandal Former banker roger ng charged with helping to launder billions of dollars embezzled from the fund and bribery Joining me is Jonathan nacy a professor at Yale law school Jonathan tell us about the broad outlines of the scandal This is one of the largest scandals in history where Goldman bankers Tim wisener and Malaysian financier Joe Lowe basically diverted $4.5 billion from a fund called the one MDB fund to pay for a very lavish lifestyle and to buy yachts and private jets and jewelry and fund movie to Wall Street Basically the idea is Goldman sold securities and the proceeds from the securities were supposed to be used to build infrastructure and benefit the Malaysian people but it was really just a massive ripoff Goldman has paid $5 billion in fines and apologized for breaking the law How much of a black mark was that for the investment bank Well you was a black mark but you know golf and already has a reputation for being pretty edgy when it comes to ethical issues and as clients seem to stick with it So they're kind of Teflon bank They can do seemingly virtually anything as far as being involved in scandals and ripoffs without experiencing any reputational consequence So how did it end up that ing is the only golden employee to face trial for this That's a great question There is a Goldman partner who was boss a guy named Tim wisener and he has pled guilty to money laundering paying bribes and circumventing Goldman's internal control system and is cooperating with the government and they've held off his Senate seat till after he testifies in this trial basically Goldman's lawyers have succeeded in sort of cabining the scandal to Malaysia Prosecutors have emails and online chats indicating ings involvement as well as financial records What's his likely defense here I think the core of his defense was that he was involved in helping on the deal but he didn't know about any of the shenanigans He didn't know about any of the diversion of funds that occurred later It's going to be the core of his defense But it's going to stay is that he warned Goldman and that he came back to the United States to face trial as opposed to Lowe's decision to flee A lot of this will come down to how credible live is and what sort of the defense can poke into lies there's testimony I think his testimony will be the most important part of the trial And do we expect to see the typical attack on a witness who's flipped that lisner is implicating ing to save himself Absolutely the mystery's lawyers made it very clear that that's what they plan to allege that he's trying to get a lighter Senate lies their sentencing has been delayed until after his testimony It sounds like your classic prosecutorial quid pro quo You would think that he would take a deal as well as lisner Well the problem is I think why is there had a card to play which was testifying against aim It's not clear that ng has a card to play So he may not have been able to command the same sort of deal It's also when you have two high profile defendants like this Liza and ing it's often a kind of a rate who cooperates first It looks like lies their beat them to it The jury's going to hear about all this extravagant spending but might there be some sympathy for ing as sort of the scapegoat the only Goldman employee to be tried I don't think that curious have a lot of sympathy for investment bankers So to the extent that he was involved in conspicuous consumption in the prosecution could draw that out I think that will hurt him with a jury I think there will be a question raised as to why is paying the only person on trial That will be a question that naturally will come up with the jury But it doesn't get him off the hook But the amount of time involved here if he faces as much as 30 years in prison that seems like if a murder sentence Right Well it's attributable to the very large amounts of money involved And when you're talking about fraud in the billions the misappropriation of 2.7 billion from one MDB then you get into pretty long prison sentences And then after this he is likely to be extradited back to Malaysia for another trunk Thanks John That's Jonathan Macy of Yale law school coming up a loss for minority voting rights This is Bloomberg What's the true Sure we have 30 seconds to tell you that drivers who switch to progressive could.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"In the Nike We have right now in Hong Kong the hang seng down one tenth of 1% different story on the Chinese mainland Shanghai composite higher by three tenths of 1% that cost me down two tenths of 1% and in Sydney the ASX 200 weaker by 7 tenths of 1% Ten year treasury yield last quoted in New York at 2.02% Global news 24 hours a day on air and on Bloomberg quick take This is Bloomberg This is Bloomberg law A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge tell us a little about the facts of the case Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts I guess this former federal prosecutor Jimmy garu joining me is Bloomberg long reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases and headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June Grasso From Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg launch show I'm June grosso Ahead in this hour We'll go behind the allegations in the racial discrimination lawsuit filed by former Miami Dolphins coach Brian Flores against the NFL And after a thousand days a Goldman banker will stand trial for the one MDB scandal It's been nearly.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Talk about both with Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin ahead first though Let's get a check on the markets a big check right now with Charlie pellet I thank you very much and big losses Joe Matthew with the Dow the S&P nez stack all declining We are off a session lows at one point we did have the Dow Jones Industrial Average down by more than 1100 points Let's begin with the Dow because right now it is down 750 points That is a drop of 2.2% Again the worst levels of the day the Dow had been down by 3.25% The S&P 500 Index correction mode there with the S&P down 113 down 2.6% NASDAQ is down 400 points to drop there of 2.9% extending its losses January to 14.5% Stocks getting crushed in a risk off day as volatility spikes also investors seeking safety in treasuries and the spectra of a fed policy mistake and rising geopolitical tensions royal markets around the globe Tenure up 1330 seconds ten year yield 1.71% gold up four tenths of 1% 1842 ounce while with Texas intermediate crude is down 2% 83 43 for a barrel of WTI Bottom line here markets are continuing to price in a fed tightening even as equities dive David Reilly as chief investment strategist that blue bay asset management There has been this kind of disconnect between the messaging and the expectations around it fed policy and financial conditions And I think what we're seeing now is kind of financial conditioning conditions starting to catch up with what the bond market has been saying in terms of the outlook for the fed Boeing is plowing $450 million into whisk An air taxi startup with Google roots as the century old Titan looks to Silicon Valley to expand its stake in futuristic self flying aircraft that make one day zip over city centers Again recapping equities lower tenure yield 1.71% for the S&P now down by 102 points down 2.3% I'm Charlie paladin Joe Matthew is your Bloomberg business flash We do thank you from the Bloomberg.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law A divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge Tell us a little about the facts of the case Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts I guess his former federal prosecutor Jimmy Carole joining me is Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases in headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June Grasso From Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg law show I'm June grosso Ahead in this hour The Supreme Court is likely to rule against Boston over flying a Christian flag at city hall And Microsoft's Activision deal will test Biden's antitrust regime President Joe Biden's antitrust regime is facing its first big test of the year Microsoft $69 billion all cash takeover of Activision Blizzard brings together two major gaming platforms in a deal that directly affects consumers The agreement is likely to get an extensive review by the FTC or the Justice Department The two anti Trump regulators that have announced they're ready to increase their scrutiny of deals in general Joining me is Jennifer ree Bloomberg intelligence senior litigation analyst U.S. antitrust enforcers announced an effort to toughen merger review Was this expected Oh yes I think that this has been a long time coming You know there's just been chatter in the industry for several years now And when I say the industry I mean like academics and economists and stakeholders in the antitrust world that antitrust enforcement over time has become too lax Now now that's not the majority of you necessarily but there's a strong view out there in the industry that for whatever reason whether it's been a failure of enforcement by the Department of Justice or FTC or whether it's been difficulty in the courts to get those decisions and set precedent that's helpful for future cases that for whatever reason enforcement has become too lax And I think one of the missions of President Biden when he came in and the antitrust enforcer said he has appointed has been to deal with this And to figure out whether in fact it has been too lax and what needs to be done about it and to try to tighten it up So they had this press conference Did they explain what they're looking to do They did So the press conference was targeted to what are called the horizontal merger guidelines Now there are two different guidelines called the horizontal merger guidelines in the vertical merger guidelines and they are used by the agencies to give them sort of a step by step framework by which to analyze the deals that come before them and get reviewed They basically say here's what you should be looking for or how you should be conducting a review of these deals to determine whether they may harm competition and essentially create a monopoly or violate the law So it's these guidelines that have been followed now for several years The horizontal guidelines were last updated in 2010 The vertical guidelines were actually updated not very long ago during the Trump administration but that update was then rescinded by the current Federal Trade Commission which now has no vertical guidelines The Department of Justice still has the old ones And essentially what they're asking is whether or not it's time to update both sets of guidelines And when I say horizontal and vertical horizontal meaning they provide a framework for assessing deals where the companies are direct horizontal competitors They both basically compete to offer the same product or service The vertical guidelines are targeted to mergers that result in vertical integration So in other words like a distributor by a supplier Or a manufacturer buying a distributor something like that They're operating in different levels of the supply chain in the same industry And if these deals tend to be different and they're analyzed differently So we've had these two sets of guidelines And what they're asking is whether they should be put together in the press conference They said you know maybe one option would be putting vertical and horizontal merger guidelines together and just having a set of merger guidelines And whether or not they all need to be updated to better reflect the current economy the digital markets that we live with today how we assess these deals and whether we're appropriately catching the deals that we should that potentially violate the antitrust laws Or the tech giants at risk is one particular sector more at risk than others I think probably big tech I'll say is slightly more at risk Although because some of the changes that they're thinking about are looking at are directed toward elements of the economy that really only apply to big tech like data aggregation or the acquisition of a nascent startup competitor But these are guidelines that apply to all mergers across the board So whatever the new guidelines are they'll apply to every deal that's out there So I wouldn't say that it's particularly targeted toward big tech But I do think that some of the concepts that they're thinking about in rewriting these are focused on looking at the power that's been amassed by big tech and asking how did they get there So how long would it take to revamp the rules and go through the approval process the comment period Yes It takes a long time Now they're targeting to have new guidelines released before the end of 2022 I don't know if they'll make it I think they could though They first have put out what's called a request for information where they're asking anybody You know economists academics lawyers farmers ranchers consumers anybody to provide any input that they want to in response to this request for information They've kind of laid out a list of questions and things they're thinking about and areas where they'd like input And they'll collect all those up through March They'll review all those and based on that review in their own internal studies They'll put together sort of a draft set And then that draft set will go out to the public and that'll probably be quite a few months after they've collected those comments And then there's a new comment period that opens where people consumers anybody out there can then provide comments to the draft set and based on those comments that draft gets tweaked and then you have a final And that's what they're targeting to have out by the end of the year Coming up next Will Microsoft $69 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard pass antitrust review I'm gross listening to Bloomberg Progressive presents metaphors About bundling your home and auto When you bundle your home and auto with progressive you get great savings and round the clock protection which is as beautiful as looking your.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law I divided Supreme Court rejects a religious challenge a little about the facts of the case Peter views with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg legal experts I guess his former federal prosecutor Jimmy Carole joining me is Bloomberg law reporter Jordan Rubin And analysis of important legal issues cases and headlines The Supreme Court takes on state secrets multiple lawsuits were filed against the emergency rule Is this lawsuit for real Bloomberg law with June Grasso From Bloomberg radio Welcome to the Bloomberg wall show I'm Jim Rosso ahead in this hour The Supreme Court will decide whether thousands of immigrants can remain in detention indefinitely And 2022 in judicial nominations President Joe Biden beat out every president since Ronald Reagan in getting judges confirmed in his first year and Biden helped to diversify the bench with his nominees 20 were black 14 were Hispanic or Latino 13 were Asian American and Pacific Islander and three were Native American But the road to confirmations may be more difficult this year Joining me is professor Carl Tobias of the university of Richmond law school So first of all tell us what Joe Biden accomplished with his judicial confirmations in 2021 Well he hide Ronald Reagan's record for the first year of a presidency because Biden confirmed 40 appellate and district judges 11 for the appeals courts 29 for the district court And you have to go back to the time of Reagan to see anyone who came close to that And easily surpassed the number whom Trump nominated and confirmed in 2017 So it was very successful And the nominees who were confirmed and the nominees themselves were very diverse in terms of ethnicity gender sexual orientation experience and ideology and all of that is critically important for the federal judiciary So some groups are complaining that there should be more Hispanics on the bench and nominees who are disabled or who have a background in disability law Are you getting the best candidate possible when you're looking to change the diversity on the bench Well the credit on which kind of diversity you're talking about but the types of diversity which Biden has promoted I think are important to have a judiciary that reflects the country gives more confidence to citizens in the federal courts when it reflects America limits prejudice against people who might experience dissemination federal courts And so all of that is valuable and also means you'll have a better decision And so everyone has a different mission of what qualified person is for the federal bench But certainly all of Biden's nominees and companies have been highly qualified and I think something like 8 90% of the highest American bar association ratings There's a vacancy on the Philadelphia circuit court That'll give Biden a chance to flip that circuit Yes Brooke Smith who was the chief judge of the court recently assuming senior status And he was appointed by Republican president And so that means when his seat is still that court will flip back if you will to a majority appointed by democratic presidents How many other circuits has Biden managed to flip back in a year The other I think was the second because a Vermont judge Peter hall resigned and then die a week later But he had been appointed by Republican president And so that meant killing his seat with judge Robinson meant that that court flipped back Trump had managed to appoint enough people that there was a majority appointed by Republican president but it flipped back to Democrats with replacement overall So how important is that flipping of the circuits when the panels are composed of three judges and so it depends on the luck of the draw for that It does and you also have to remember on bonk review by majority of judges and active service and so the second subject rarely takes up on bonds but other courts are quite active on that front But you're correct I mean they're supposed to be random draws for three judgments And it's somewhat of a recruit measure to talk about who the appointing president was But generally I think when it's a Republican the nominees and appointees are more conservative and when is a Democrat the point is in nominees are more moderate than sometimes with them So tell us a little about the 6th circuit nominee who's facing opposition from the Republican senators Andre Mathis is a nominee for the 6 circuit He's highly qualified He's a longtime commercial litigator but has done a fair amount of criminal litigation as well And was nominated recently by the president the home state senators from Tennessee senator Blackburn He sits on judiciary committee and senator hagerty said they weren't consulted enough by The White House in terms of whether they agreed to that nomination And the president did go forward and nominate Mathis but The White House and the council's office you have responsibility for that said that there was considerable consultation with the home state senators So maybe that's Blackburn We'll bring that up in the hearing Coming up next will the confirmation process be more uphill in year two This is Bloomberg The market.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Brian shook You're listening to Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to Jordan Rubin at Bloomberg long about the state of Oklahoma asking the Supreme Court to reverse its 2020 ruling in mcgirt the Oklahoma So what are Oklahoma's petitions before the Supreme Court How many are there And what do they say So there are over 30 petitions that they've lodge in front of the court and we're waiting for the justices to consider them in the coming weeks and months And there is one additional claim that they're pressing which is sort of a follow on issue to McGregor in terms of how the decision applies to non Indians And that's potentially an issue that the court could take up but at the same time they're either additionally or separately just straight up pressing this claim to overturn mcgirt They point out that the court doesn't always follow its prior decisions We've seen in recent years the court overturning precedence of course whenever you talk about precedent now we have to note I think that the court is considering overruling the long-standing abortion precedence and the state is saying that this was an erroneous decision and they just want the court to change its mind It is remarkable that state officials are reminding the justices that they don't always follow their prior rulings I mean they cited a 2019 case that led justice Steven breyer to wonder which case is the court will overrule next something which some of the liberal justices have noted in the past Right.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"jordan rubin" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"You're listening to Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio I've been talking to Jordan Rubin of Bloomberg long about the state of Oklahoma asking the Supreme Court to reverse its 2020 ruling in mcgirt the Oklahoma So what are Oklahoma's petitions before the Supreme Court How many are there And what do they say So there are over 30 petitions that they've lodge in front of the court and we're waiting for the justices to consider them in the coming weeks and months And there is one additional claim that they're pressing which is sort of a follow on issue to make in terms of how the decision applies to non Indians And that's potentially an issue that the court could take up But at the same time they're either additionally or separately just straight up pressing this claim to overturn mcgirt They point out that the court doesn't always follow its prior decisions We've seen in recent years the court overturning precedents of course whenever you talk about precedent now we have to note I think that the court is considering overruling the long-standing abortion precedents and the state is saying that this was an erroneous decision and they just want the court to change its mind It is remarkable that state officials are reminding the justices that they don't always follow their prior rulings I mean they cited a 2019 case that led justice Stephen breyer to wonder which case is the court will overrule next something which some of the liberal justices have noted in the past Right.