6 Burst results for "Judge Higgins"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"judge higgins" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Had behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel Your honor Joining me is Liga litman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued But the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court set the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you test the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is Zola fiing people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case just higginson in the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court appeals after the federal oral argument on this motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as in a meeting because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court confused case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite casti oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg You you come into bed Hun Yep honey I'll be right there Just gotta turn.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"judge higgins" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel No your honor Joining me is Leah littman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leo this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued What the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state laws That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court sent the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you have the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is Zola fiing people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay as resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case judge higginson and the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court appeals optic federal oral argument on the motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as in a mucus because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court's office case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite casby oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg Introducing venture.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"judge higgins" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Had behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel No your honor Joining me is Leah littman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued With the United States Supreme Court set is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court sent the case back now to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you Texas Supreme Court needs to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different companions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold onto the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow Texas to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is vilifying people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case just higginson in the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court of skills offered to schedule oral arguments on the motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as an amuse because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court's office case wrong And so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a quite hefty oral argument Thanks Leo That's professor Leo lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg I haven't really woken up Until I've had my McDonald's breakfast deal and I know this is true because before breakfast I put my phone in the refrigerator and couldn't find the keys that were already in my hand Nothing gets the morning going like the first sip of it iced coffee Get any size in any flavor for 99 cents until 11 a.m. Price and participation may vary McDonald's.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"judge higgins" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Do you appreciate my difficult do you like to persuade me I don't sense that you're intimidating So you don't need any assistance I've asked you to question any premise I've made So if the suggestion is I'm litigating push back on any premise that I've had behind my question Has there been any unfair question do you counsel No your honor Joining me is Lee and litman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court twice explain why it's back at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued What the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FDA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court sent the case back down to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you test the Supreme Court need to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority disciplined doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request in order to allow the states to continue to enforce this law was one of the point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow taxes to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic The law is currently in effect and is nullifying people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row And how unusual is it to have one judge accuse another of not being impartial during the oral arguments There were definitely several oddities about the oral argument It's clear that there are strong feelings on both sides about the legal arguments and also how the courts are handling this case judge higginson and the dissenting opinion when the U.S. court reveals after the federal oral argument on the motion to certify invited the United States to intervene in the lawsuit and participate as an avid gift because he felt that the courts and the states were slow walking this challenge and in the process nullifying people's ability to exercise their constitutional right On the other hand you have two Republican appointed judges on the course of appeals kind of making jokes at the oral argument suggesting the Supreme Court office case wrong and so there are definitely strongly held views on both sides which means for a testy oral argument Thanks Leah That's professor Leah lit of the University of Michigan law school Coming up the Netflix series Tiger king being sued over movie clips This is Bloomberg The names Introducing venture.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"judge higgins" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"5th circuit oral arguments over whether the Texas Supreme Court should weigh in on the Texas law banning most abortions was unusual because of the frequent sparring between two judges with one judge telling the other that this court doesn't litigate on behalf of one side or the other Joining me is Leah lipman a professor at the University of Michigan law school Leah this case went to the Supreme Court So tell us what's happening at the 5th circuit So what ended up happening is the United States Supreme Court decided the issues in the case as the parties were then arguing them And what the Texas state officials were arguing at the time was that the law clearly did not give any of them any enforcement authority and therefore they could not be sued What the United States Supreme Court said is we United States Supreme Court think that at least these state licensing officials have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violation of FBA because those licensing officials have that enforcement authority they can be sued But that conclusion rests on an interpretation of state law And the United States Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the meaning of state law That job falls to the state courts And so when the United States Supreme Court set the case back down to the 5th circuit the Texans officials filed a motion saying we would like you court to basically ask the taxes Supreme Court about whether the United States Supreme Court interpretation of the state law was correct And you test the Supreme Court needs to tell us whether these licensing officials actually do have the authority discipline doctors and nurses who perform abortions and violations of FDA So how would it help the abortion providers if licensing boards were found to have the authority to discipline doctors about this If the licensing officials do have the authority to discipline doctors who violate FDA then the abortion providers tend to them Under the course sovereign immunity jurisprudence individual plaintiffs are required to name as defendants in lawsuits some state officer who has some connection to the enforcement of a law And if these state licensing officials can indeed discipline doctors who violate the law then they have enforcement authority and they can be sued as defendants This was a pretty contentious hearing some of the judges appeared to be sort of sparring with each other What was the main contention There were a few different contentions floating around in the argument One was just the propriety of allowing the Texas officials to request certification to the Texas Supreme Court at this late stage in the case The Texas officials had never before asked any core including the United States Supreme Court to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court And so one of the Court of Appeals judges judge Higgins said noted that there was never any case where a court had certified a question to a state Supreme Court after the state officials had lost before the United States Supreme Court or another appellate court And so the fact that this looks like a late stage request and just kind of ace in the back of the pocket in order to allow the states to continue to enforce this law even after their arguments had been rejected at the United States Supreme Court was one running concern and through line and point of disagreement between the judges in the oral argument The second point of disagreement was a matter of timing that is how urgent it was for the United States Court of Appeals to act on this case or to further delay it by certifying questions to the Texas Supreme Court One of the Court of Appeals judges judge Edith Jones asked whether they the Court of Appeals might just hold on to the case until the end of June because there was a chance that the Supreme Court might overrule roe versus wade which would allow taxes to prohibit abortions more than 6 weeks after a person's last period And so it seems like one of the judges on the Court of Appeals understands the time sensitive nature of this case The law is currently in effect and is vilifying people's ability to exercise what is currently a constitutional right but the other judges seem to want to hold on to the case and further delay its resolution until they know whether the Supreme Court is going to reaffirm or overrule row How unusual is it to decide to put off the case until the Supreme Court decides when the Supreme Court has sent the case back to the 5th circuit to decide It's extremely unusual for the Court of Appeals to consider a motion for certification at this stage because that no previous point either in the Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court did the Texas officials press the course to certify a question to the Texas Supreme Court So in that light it feels like and it looks like at least one of the judges as an unfair dilatory tactic If the state officials actually had wanted to have the Supreme Court to weigh in and thought that was necessary to the court's resolution that these cases they could have and would have requested that earlier Coming up what's likely to happen here This is Bloomberg With.
The MMA Hour with Ariel Helwani
"judge higgins" Discussed on The MMA Hour with Ariel Helwani
"Well let's move ahead to the world and mixed martial arts. Let's talk about this past saturday. Let's talk about. Jared cannon. Air defeats kelvin gasoline. Five brown decision pretty. Good fight guys have been out for a while. Had some injuries came back. Calvin gasoline is a very difficult guy to look against in jarred candy or had his moments. Also he comes back and gets the victory so before we get into. Probably the bigger story here spencer. Just your overall thoughts about jerry. Ken nears performance and what he was able to do against. Calvin gasoline this past saturday. I mean as you said. Calvin a tough out. It's a good win. A- looked he looked solid. i thought he won. Three of the five rounds just as the judge did. I thought that was pretty clear. An calvin is has questioned otherwise and his corners throughout the fight where we're telling him otherwise which was suspect but i thought cannon near looked good as you said he's been offer while he's coming off the loss to robert whitaker and the broken arm and and getting back into the swing of things anyone out there and we looked good in the. I clearly took the second round off. Goes out and gets the third and fourth to put himself in that kinda. Don't get knocked out. Don't get finished zone. And that's kind of how the fifth round plato and so it's going handling business the way you need to at times in spots this because this was also a short notice fight right like this was kelvin. Gosselin jumping in for paulo costs. So it's not like he spent the whole time getting ready for calvin gosselin and i mean honest slide. So you're maybe not as as up for it as you are the prospects of going in and facing paulo kosta whose only losses to israel out of sonya and. Maybe put you right next in line and so to go out and handle business. The way he did he gets full marks for for doing his job. He looked good. I think he has a chance to look better next time out. There's clearly still some room to to grow and improve. But he handled business and did what he needed to do. What did you think jed what what. What would you give. Jared ken near for grade. Whether it be five out of ten fifty out of one hundred however you want to scale this thing up jed how would you grade candidates performance. That's like a c on. Oh sorry guess what saw like seventy four out of one hundred. It's one of those things you know. We're coming off the olympic cycle and we just watched you know all these sports that have judges criteria for them and all of them gymnastics and diving and all the other stuff. It there are two factors. It's how you do and your degree of difficulty gerakan near did fine like a totally acceptable thing. We have very low. Degree of difficulty is tell gossip sucks. Here's one one win over currently relevant. Middleweight like i. I'm just pretending that we need to treat kelvin gasoline like. He's legit middleweight prospect. Like he's a fine doesn't suck. He's a very competent fighter. And that's it. There's no shame in being competent fighter. Like that still put you in the ninety nine point nine nine percent of the world for like he has a win over. Heinisch that's it. That's the only relevant win. He has in his career. When you start a you said you know. He's a hard guy to look good against. And that's maybe true. He's in general more difficult to like look exceptional against but in horgos a beat because five people beat him in the last couple of years here and granted he's fighting tough dudes but at some point if you find a bunch of tough dudes you need to win one of them for me to care about you. As a middleweight. The cell he he we talked about this last week he until have unbel- unrivaled ability to fail upwards like i don't understand coming off this clearly. Lost he's insane to pretend that i won this. I thought i took it no. You obviously didn't. And then he he post erkan striking stats on his twitter. Look i'll destructive you shokhin by one strike. Three rounds any dropped. You one told me deal with it. You low like it's not boggles my mind that that we are still like. Yeah tell the gospel. That's like a great win win. It is a win over somebody who's relevant and that is good but like celtic should not be in anybody's rankings. We do our intimate fighting rankings. At the end of this month. I'm not putting him in my fifteen. I refuse because he has a widow in heinisch. And you don't get style points for losing these rata sonya. Well like you didn't win the fight pro so that's like a year. She did his job and he did his job against short-notice replacement and so you can't really take away from because long fence is that it's not a higher preparing for. Maybe you're not as up for it because you probably as a professional fighter are the kelvin gospel on this very smoke and mirrors in his selling points and but he did his job and he's going to get himself a title fight. But i didn't come out of that by thinking man that dude's to do to test dizzy sweet. That's going to be another solid win on a distant is You know on his bell when he gets the ruby we like. Oh that was jerry near with. That was a good win as relevant high-quality middleweight and i defeated. That is what. I left that by thanking special. Go back to you because we talked about the win. He was out for a little while. Coming up the whitaker loss wants to get to a title. Sure you're in the main event and people are talking about you but the thing that got people talking more than anything. Was the post fight interview talking about being broke and then he went on the hour and sort of peeled back the onion so to speak of where it comes from saying essentially like you know what the ufc treats as. Well you know me. Not fighting sucks cost me. Some time cost me a good amount of money but listen we are professional athletes. We should. I should have six figures in my bank account. Right now untouched. That's just what we are fighting on. Espn we're professional athletes at the highest level. So with everything that cannon air did on saturday on monday with ariel and just talking about the situation did he move the needle at all in either direction like whether just for the fighter right side or for i'm one of the top middleweights in the world side. I mean i think as profile is increased which which will help him in the. I'm one of the top middleweights in the world. Because he really is. he's one of us. Said is in that group at the top of the division that puts them in the one percentile and so in that regard it certainly moved the needle and he's gotten a lot more attention for what he said and being on a platform like the ma our with your colleague and my friend area awani. Does it really change a lot for him. Does it move the needle in terms of people are going to be clamoring for the next jared cannon near fight probably not because unfortunately in this community people have really short memories and they like shouting about the cause of the day and then moving onto the next thing and we've seen over many many years that there's only a handful of fighters that are gonna generate an and command that interest and hold onto it from for a long long time and as good as jet jared cannon. Air is as valid as everything he said. Monday is he just one of those guys. And so yup people remember this win and they'll remember them because we'll replay the the interview with ariel talk about it again whenever his next gets announced in whatever that fight then comes up. But he's not a guy that people are going to be like circling the calendar to make sure like setting a google alert for jared cannon near fight news. And that's you know that's not a knock on him. That's just the way that this business works in the way that this community seems to function judge higgins head. I mean listen. We're he felt like if can there be gasoline. His position was pretty clear. Fighting the winner of dr until versus derek brunson and then hopefully gets on the road to the title so i think in terms of his performance. Yeah he gets a win. And that's great all the headlines. Were the comments afterwards jet. So do you think like other fighters were like picked up the phone and call. Jared like dude. Well done like. Let's start form tribe. Let's get this thing done. let's do it. Nobody's been able to do before. Like.