35 Burst results for "Justice Alito"
Stephanie Miller's Happy Hour Podcast
Glenn Kirschner: It's Time for an Investigation Into Justice Alito
"You tweeted Congress if you're listening. It's time for an investigation. I'd fashion it an impeachment inquiry of justice Alito, his lies to the Senate to the American people into the late senator Ted Kennedy must be investigated because women's constitutional rights matter. Yeah, I got to get your take on this latest bombshell report about justice Alito leaking. Yeah, The New York Times made it pretty clear in its reporting. I think two days ago, a couple mister and misses Wright had dinner with another couple, mister and misses Alito, and the next day, misses Wright contacted this reverend shank is his name and said, I've got some very interesting information. No emails, please, and then she told him that basically Alito authored the hobby lobby opinion. Another opinion that basically is religion over the rule of law, and that hobby lobby is gonna win. So Alito leaked his own opinion, the hobby lobby opinion. Don't you think he probably also leaked the Dobbs opinions revoking women's constitutional privacy rights? Yeah. And then acted all huffy about it.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"justice alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Court deal another blow to the Voting Rights Act? And the court is going to step into the politically fraught debate over section two 30. In oral arguments today, the Supreme Court's conservatives considered limiting the creation of majority black voting districts in a case that could deliver another blow to the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 law designed to protect minority voters at the ballot box. The court is considering whether Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing its congressional map in a way that ensures the state will have just one black representative for the next decade. Alabama is 27% black, but has only one majority black voting district out of 7 in all. A three judge panel said Alabama was probably violating the Voting Rights Act with its map drawn by the Republican control legislature. Joining his election law expert Rick Hassan, a professor at UCLA law school. Tell us what the issue is here about the Alabama map. So the Voting Rights Act requires that under certain conditions, basically when there are large populations of minority voters. And white voters and minority voters tend to vote for different candidates. It's possible that the Voting Rights Act requires the drawing of a district to give those minority voters a chance to get representation. And the Alabama case, a three judge court held that although Alabama had one congressional district where minority voters could elect a candidate of choice. They were entitled to a second one given the size of their population where the population was and the continued racially polarized voting in the state of Alabama. So the fact that the Supreme Court stepped in and allowed Alabama to keep its map for the primaries just as Kagan called it clear vote dilution. Do you see that as the court tipping its hand here? Well, back when the court decided to put this ruling on hold, that was a pretty good indication that a majority of the court's justices thought that Alabama was likely to win. In fact, chief justice Roberts, who is not always most friendly to voting rights plaintiffs, dissented from that order back last spring because he said that under existing law looks like Alabama should win. So the question really is whether or not the court is ready to tweak or more radically change, understanding of how the Voting Rights Act works. If it does so in this case, depending on how it does though it could have small implications or very large implications for minority representation. In the Congress as well as in state and local legislatures. What was the main focus of the oral arguments? Well, Alabama advanced a number of different arguments. Their most radical argument would essentially rework section two of the Voting Rights Act. And there was little appetite on the court for issuing an opinion that would overturn decades of precedent and have a whole new approach to the Voting Rights Act. But there was much more interest, at least among some of the conservative justices, especially justice Alito in tweaking the existing standards in a way that would make it look like the court is continuing with its application of existing law, but actually changes the standards enough to make it easier for states to win and harder for minority voters to win. The real question is whether or not the other justices would be willing to go along with justice Alito. Can you describe what he would want to do? Was justice Alito would do is essentially inject into this, it's complicated as a three part test followed by a multi car test to figure out when there's a Voting Rights Act violation. Justice Alito suggested changing one of those parts of the initial three part test known as the jingles test for 1986 case called thornburg versus jingles. Which would essentially require minority voters to demonstrate that they would be in college or representation, even if you did not look at race. In applying the usual criteria that states do when they decide how to draw their maps. The very technical point are hard to explain briefly on a radio interview, but the upshot is that if justice illegals views prevail, it's just going to be much harder for minority plaintiffs to win the case. And justice gate Brown Jackson had a lot to say, as she did yesterday. Well, justice Jackson, even though this was only her second day of oral argument, the Supreme Court came out of the box very well prepared and extremely aggressive in countering what justice Alito was trying to do, so justice Alito was trying to find a way to re interpret the standards that apply to section two. And justice Jackson's main point was that justice will leave us approach is inconsistent with the text of section two. It's inconsistent with the precedent that's applied section two. And there's no constitutional reason. I thought it was particularly notable that on the constitutional point, justice Jackson went back to the original understanding of the reconstruction amendments, the 13th 14th and 15th amendments, which provide the basis for Congress to act to pass the Voting Rights Act. I saw that as an appeal to some of the justices who are originalists on the court. Care about the original meaning. And what she was trying to argue is that the Voting Rights Act as it's been understood is very much in line with what those who passed the Fourteenth Amendment thought could happen, which is that there could be race conscious laws that could be passed to provide protection for members of our society who faced past discrimination. Coming up next in the Bloomberg law show, I'm going to continue this conversation with professor Rick casson of UCLA law school. We'll talk about how the court is likely to rule here, and an upcoming Supreme Court case on redistricting that
Mark Levin
Remembering Kenneth Starr on 'Life, Liberty & Levin'
"Here he was on life liberty and Levine just a few months ago cut 23 go Welcome back America our first guest really needs no introduction but I'll give him one anyway as judge Ken Starr he was a judge from the D.C. Court of Appeals He was solicitor general of the United States independent counsel one of the great legal minds in the country judge star I have a question here Have you ever seen anything like this in your life with a leak first draft with a political party encouraging protests at the homes of justices with at least early on the Department of Justice taking literally no steps to protect these justices What do you make of this No it's been one outrageous thing after another The leak itself was as chief justice Roberts said in his written statement an egregious breach we all know that And I have frankly been very disappointed that there hasn't been anonymity in the condemnation of the leak as opposed to simply ignoring it And then yes the protests outside the different homes but especially justice Alito's home is really another outrage and one that just cries out for the government to use for the federal government to use its enforcement power You identified the law It's a criminal law It's been on the books for a long time and it should be enforced It should be faithfully enforced
The Charlie Kirk Show
"justice alito" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"With us right now is a great American patriot cofounder and general partner of new founding and also the president of American firebrand super PAC and friend of the show. Matt Peterson Matt, welcome back to the program. Hey, it's great to be here, Charlie. So Matt, I want to get through a couple news items here. But first, I want to play a piece of tape here from justice Alito's speech. I think he gave it in Rome, which is super scary 'cause that's where the Catholic Church is headquartered and not allowed to do that. And I want to play cut 94 here. And the way the media has responded is a new line of attack that you can see in kind of the smart coordinated circles, the people that are considered to be smarter than not. However, they are all kind of coordinating their attacks around Christian nationalism, play cut 94. Over the last few weeks, since I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a cold string of foreign leaders. Who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law. One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price, Matt kind of mocking Boris Johnson there, Sam Alito, who I think is the best thing George W. Bush ever gave us, probably my favorite member of the court. They're attacking him as being a Christian nationalist. What do they mean by that, Matt? Well, in their minds, of course, they think Christian nationalism is a smear. They think both of those words are bad. And if you put them together, it's too bad things. And that's one big bad thing, and it's a scary monster, which I think in their minds means something like handmaid's tale and enforced Christian religion. They think it's racist too, somehow they seem to only regard whites as Christians, interesting. But white people who are Christian controlling the country and shoving their views down everyone else's throat is what they mean by it. And the hilarious thing here is that neither of those words are bad and when you put them together, you actually get what I think millions of people throughout the country think is normal.
The Charlie Kirk Show
New Founding's Matt Peterson on Justice Alito, Christian Nationalism
"With us right now is a great American patriot cofounder and general partner of new founding and also the president of American firebrand super PAC and friend of the show. Matt Peterson Matt, welcome back to the program. Hey, it's great to be here, Charlie. So Matt, I want to get through a couple news items here. But first, I want to play a piece of tape here from justice Alito's speech. I think he gave it in Rome, which is super scary 'cause that's where the Catholic Church is headquartered and not allowed to do that. And I want to play cut 94 here. And the way the media has responded is a new line of attack that you can see in kind of the smart coordinated circles, the people that are considered to be smarter than not. However, they are all kind of coordinating their attacks around Christian nationalism, play cut 94. Over the last few weeks, since I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a cold string of foreign leaders. Who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law. One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price, Matt kind of mocking Boris Johnson there, Sam Alito, who I think is the best thing George W. Bush ever gave us, probably my favorite member of the court. They're attacking him as being a Christian nationalist. What do they mean by that, Matt? Well, in their minds, of course, they think Christian nationalism is a smear. They think both of those words are bad. And if you put them together, it's too bad things. And that's one big bad thing, and it's a scary monster, which I think in their minds means something like handmaid's tale and enforced Christian religion. They think it's racist too, somehow they seem to only regard whites as Christians, interesting. But white people who are Christian controlling the country and shoving their views down everyone else's throat is what they mean by it. And the hilarious thing here is that neither of those words are bad and when you put them together, you actually get what I think millions of people throughout the country think is normal.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
Justice Alito Cracks Dobbs Jokes Abroad
"Want to play for you justice Alito abroad, talking about European reaction to the Dobbs decision. Can we play cut number one of justice Alito yesterday? A few weeks since I had the honor, this term of writing, I think, the only Supreme Court decision in the history of that institution that has been lambasted by a whole string of foreign leaders. Who felt perfectly fine commenting on American law. One of these was former prime minister Boris Johnson. But he paid the price. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, right? All right, so that's a joke. And don't take it as anything other than a joke, because of course, former prime minister Barack Johnson is still the prime minister, but justice Alito is gracefully telling non Americans that they don't get the make Supreme Court law. The United States Constitution dictates what Supreme Court law is. And even if they made a mistake, 49 years ago with roe and doubled down on that mistake, 30 years ago in Casey, now the court has it right. It is up to the states.
America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
'Created Equal' Author Mark Paoletta Reacts to SCOTUS Overturning Roe
"But Mark talked to us about last week. As you said, sep, a great day for the constitution. I can't stop smiling, right? It's such a wonderful, such a wonderful thing that happened, right? And there's so many on so many levels. One of them being that the left through everything at these justice is in the most despicable way possible, right? And one of the I worked on justice Thomas's confirmation back in 1991, right? And I saw it when I reviewed his speeches in an article from his time as the EEOC. He'd been through the fire and he never wilted. He never bent, right? And so to see whether you never know how a justice is going to be until they're on the court in under fire. And it's such a great day that justice Barrett justice Gorsuch justice Kavanaugh, justice Alito, and justice Thomas, did not bend, right? And that's one of the most important things coming out of this opinion. Returning it to the states where it properly belongs. And then this intimidation. And you know, when you going back to the book and the movie, justice Thomas recognized, during those confirmation hearings, all the left cared about was this decision. This is what they were going to destroy him on. So the roe V wade was the neuralgic point for the left. 100% and he goes back to it over and over. He said, they didn't care what I did with my life. They didn't care about anything I had done. They wanted this issue, and they were going to destroy me to keep this issue.
The Charlie Kirk Show
The Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade and the Left Is Losing It
"And the left is losing their mind. This is my favorite. Let's go to cut one O three. ABC, they said, how dare the Supreme Court ignore any potential public reaction, play cut one O three? You know, it's interesting Terry because initially in this opinion that had been leaked justice Alito had written previously that we can not allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public's reaction to our work, talking about any reaction actually to that leak or what could happen if this ruling came down and it would seem in delivering the same opinion today that that's exactly what they've done here. They've ignored any potential public reaction to this. And just ignored what public reaction, what do they mean by that? I mean, their threats didn't work. Now, let's remember that the decision was leaked in a last ditch attempt to try to thwart this from happening. We still don't know who the leaker is inexcusably we don't know who the leaker is. I hope they were arrested and they survey healthy prison sentence. But it really goes to show how this is the new
The Dan Bongino Show
Justice Alito: There Is No Constitutional Right to Abortion
"Today in an opinion by justice Alito joined by four other members of the court it was concurred with by noted invertebrate justice Roberts who said well I wouldn't have overturned roe I would have just upheld this law He got rid of roe V wade got rid of case He said very flat out they are overruled There's no debate about that There is no constitutional right to abortion State legislatures here you go All on you This is a great day Now this is not the end of the abortion fight not by a long shot The battlefield has just changed The battlefield has changed from the federal courts where we argue about what an undue burden according to Casey On a woman's right to abortion is No no no Now it's back to the legislature back to the ballot box Where it belongs
Mike Gallagher Podcast
Justice Alito: Roe Was Egregiously Wrong From the Start
"In the majority ruling, justice Alito wrote, Rowe was egregiously wrong from the start. It's reasoning was exceptionally weak. The decision has had damaging consequences, the constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Row and Casey, arrogated that authority. The court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives. Praise God.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
Supreme Court Strikes Down Gun Restrictions in New York
"The big news yesterday, of course, Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment oddly means what it says. It's a plane reading. I was on with special report last night with Brett bear joined by the estimable Molly Hemingway and Leslie Marshall and got asked out of the box explain it and it's a 136 pages, but I did this in 53 seconds, cut number 22. You significant, this gun ruling today, the impact nationwide. Well, there are 6 other states brat that have the same sort of regime about issuing permits that New York State does, a regime that was struck down as unconstitutional under the plain language of the Second Amendment today. Justice Alito, he wrote a concurring opinion, 6 judges, 6 justices agreed and justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, but justice later said, look, what we're deciding today is very simply put. Americans have the right to go out of their house and carry their weapon in self defense. They don't have to beg a bureaucrat to get that permit. And 43 states already agree with that. The 7 states who have asked me may give you the permit regimes, their laws are unconstitutional. No one should be surprised by this. It's been ten years coming and being made explicit, but it's not a surprise.
America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
Father Frank Pavone Shares His Take on the SCOTUS Abortion Leak
"He is the director, the national director for priests for life, father Frank bone, who's brought a special guest with him today, Janet morana. Welcome both of you institute. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yeah, you know I brought behind the scenes from the very beginning of our ministry. She has been leading the way for life, wouldn't be as successful as it is. Well, you know, I'm out there in front all the time. All right, well, we've got to discuss this brand new book that you brought with you. Everything you need to know about abortion for teens, that must be an incredible challenge to talk about that for that demographic, but first have to get your latest update your take father on where we are, the reaction to the leak. I know everybody's praying right now for the decision imminently or maybe in June. I've read I actually read the document, the league document on video on audio. If you want to know what's really in it, you need to go to my Twitter feed by rumble because it's an amazing document. And it's clear. It's bad law. It has to go back to the states. There is no history of being pro abortion in western civilization. Do you have a sense that the justices are going to hold the line father? I'm convinced that they will. When it's some matter so fundamental to the constitution as this is. I don't see them reversing course. Justice Alito in that document doesn't only reverse roe V wade. He obliterates it. And Casey too. And shows how weak the reasoning is how untethered from the constitution and from the history of America, how damaging it's been, it is a masterful job I want to urge everyone to read that document because I'm convinced that substantially going to be the argument that
This Week in Tech
"justice alito" Discussed on This Week in Tech
"I told you already. I'm asking my wife. That's 30. Three hours. Yeah. Well, but so I understand why you name it Glenn. I am a fan of democracy. And it is hard work. And I don't think the bulk of voters do it. I think they look at that's why TV ads work. That's why opinion pages and editorials work. People want to be told how to vote. Yep. And this is getting back getting back to Texas for a minute. Yes. And you can understand how if we're all confused about who to even vote for on these issues. How a court like the 5th circuit might be confused or swayed or it's somewhat in the dark as to how they should be considering an issue like an injunction like this. So it should come as no surprise that another circuit court has already held that a similar injunction in Florida should stand. Right. So right now we have a conflict. And that is the kind of thing that can involve the Supreme Court even at this injunctive level. Yes, but now we don't trust the Supreme Court anymore. It hasn't included clarence Thomas has definitely indicated that he's on he believes in regulating tech companies as if they were common carriers. Yes. He said a bunch of things about section two 30. So yeah, I don't know that taking it to the Supreme Court is really going to result in anything different. But yeah, I think and it is important for anybody that is not real for anybody who's not real thrilled with the leaked decision that just came out. That was authored by justice Alito, and he is the justice in charge of overseeing the 5th circuit. So it would go to him. To determine if this is going to stand or not. So if you can decide whether to involve the whole court or he can just unilaterally decide. Yes or no. What do they call that? The secret bench docket, what are they? Yeah. The midnight midnight secret docket, I think. Midnight docket. Shadow. Shadow. The shadow docket. I will say, Kavanaugh, or anything you may think about Kavanaugh, the things she writes about commerce and free speech are more interesting than you would suspect. And I remember particularly because I try to hammer the drum about monopsony, which is the ability for a company to control what price it pays suppliers, essentially, the ability to corner a market on purchasing things like Amazon is a monopsony in part. And the new head of the new now, but the FTC had I think we're going to talk about that later, Lena Khan, she wrote that great paper that was in part about monopsony and the inability of antitrust laws to affect situations in which the consumer price wasn't the issue. And Kavanaugh has written very interestingly about monopsony and other consumer protection issues. So I don't know. What's a mixed bag? On certain laws, certain things, you're like, well, there's a 6 three majority now. And others are like, well, Roberts is going to shade and maybe Kavanaugh and maybe non blanket on the fellow's name who were of course thank you. You don't want to say the wrong name there, but they might, in previous decisions, there's been 6 three and 5 four in which they have been involved. You're saying that the conservative bloc isn't necessarily predictable when it comes to First Amendment. I think at a few things, there's been some surprising stuff for 7 two decisions, things like that where you'd be like, you'd think there would be a more based on other decisions on there's the social progressive side or the progressive and privacy side, and then there's issues that are more mundane that affect commerce where I think there's still a middle there led by Roberts, who will find the majority. There's the kenwood points out also in this thread. And I'm going to have to defer to you to understand this a little bit better Denise. There's language in the bill making it deliberately harder for sites to defend claims, and it made clear that people can keep suing in different Texas courts until a court with authority over all those courts says the law is invalid. Non mutual issue preclusion and non mutual claim preclusion are not defenses to an action brought it to this section. Yeah, and because of all the constitutional challenges to this law, they've rapidly added language saying, hey, to the extent, any of this law is held unconstitutional. It's severable. And the rest of the law goes into effect. Wow. So any court that wants to do away with this law is going to have to do away with the whole thing. The Texas legislature going to Texas legislature and the AG are very good now at coming up with ways to circumvent the court. Anybody who doesn't agree with them, basically. Wow. Wow. Yeah. I do think there's some interesting these are good country lawyers. Yeah, there's some interesting discussions. There's going to be some interesting stuff for the court when it ultimately gets to a court to consider the constitutionality of this. What exactly does it mean to restrict someone's viewpoint for one thing? That's a little vague. And also vague is 50 million monthly users. It's not clear who would the law does not say who would do the counting? Right. So..
America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
Brandon Tatum Responds to the Protests at the Homes of SC Justices
"Com. We are back with the newest member of the Salem factory faculty. He is officer Brandon Tatum, who will be taking over from Larry elder as a former Leo law enforcement officer, got to play this cut for you from outside justice Alito's home yesterday, play cut. My body. My body. My body. What do I want? So in Virginia law, it's actually a crime to disturb the peace of a private residence. In federal law, it is a crime to try to exert pressure on a judicial proceedings or to intimidate a judge. Nothing happened, even in Virginia, yes, Glenn youngkin, where are you? Nothing happened in D.C.. So as a former law enforcement officer, I got to get your reaction, Brandon. Yeah, it makes my blood boy watching these people act the way they do. It's okay to protest. It's okay to peaceably assemble. But when you are breaking the law, police officers need to hold you accountable. And the funny thing is, is that when this is an attack against a conservative, everybody's cool. They can walk the streets they can threaten people and everything else. When this is against a liberal, they
America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast
Ken Klukowski: 'Roe Was a Horribly Written Opinion'
"Roe was a horribly written opinion. Arguably, there's not a single paragraph in that opinion that is actual legal reasoning where you unpack the law and then apply it to facts. You get philosophical musings in there. They talk about ancient Greece and whatnot. Stuff that has nothing to do with how you interpret the American constitutions. And so when the court in 1992 by a 5 to four vote, it shows not to overrule roe V wade, which was from 1973. The court threw out everything in roe. It's trimester framework and all of this other stuff had done. Because Rome was just an embarrassment. I forgot to mention, and the trimester framework was just cut from whole cloth. They made up this trimester framework where the state has an interest, the state doesn't have an interest. And there was no legal justification. They just made it up. That's right. That was justice blackman who just was who said looking back on his life that he would rather have gone to med school than to law school. And so, you know, read into that what you will. But that's right. Understanding that that was a legally indefensible framework they threw that out and then Casey brought in what was a viability standard that instead of three parts of a pregnancy, there's only two. There is before a child is viable outside the womb and then after it's viable and the issue of whether something is an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion before viability and but that too proved to be a completely unworkable framework and that was a, that was a big part of justice Alito's opinion
Bloomberg Radio New York
"justice alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Is Bloomberg law with June gros from Bloomberg radio Keep abortion legal The stunning leak of the draft of justice Alito's opinion overturning roe V wade has led to demonstrations across the country a doomed attempt by Senate Democrats to establish a federal right to abortion fences being erected around the Supreme Court building and a lot of speculation about the Reaper cautions of ending the half century old right to abortion including from treasury secretary Janet Yellen who warned Congress that reversing row would have a negative effect on the economy I believe that eliminating the right of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades Roe V wade and access to reproductive healthcare including abortion helped lead to increased labor force participation It enabled many women to finish school that increased their earning potential My guest is Mary ziegler a professor at UC Davis law school This draft decision leaves abortion to the states and that would mean a patchwork of abortion laws across the country Tell us about the range of restrictions we could see on abortion So I mean we don't even entirely know the full range of constraints because states are still hashing out exactly what they mean by abortion in terms of whether that's going to sweep in other pregnancy adjacent things like IUDs or the morning after pill the governor of Mississippi was on CNN just the other day and was not willing to answer a question about whether those would be included in abortion bans or Reno sets and infertility treatment like in vitro fertilization and they're trying to figure out how they're actually going to enforce these laws but we do know that somewhere in the ballpark of half the states are going to criminalize virtually all abortions within a very short period of time after rogue comes down And then it's just a matter of what exactly that means on the ground The next battleground well there are a few battlegrounds So let's say one of the next battlegrounds is states trying to stop their residents from traveling across state lines to terminate a pregnancy Can states enforce their laws beyond their borders The answer is we don't know So the extra territorial application of these laws is something that hasn't or even really any law Is this something that hasn't been dealt with a lot in recent history We have one case that isn't really directly on point from the row era And then to look back further you really have to go to the days of kind of fugitive slave disputes to really get into this kind of interstate war So I don't know Is the answer And so that's one of the reasons you see blue states anticipating these struggles and passing laws like the one in Connecticut essentially think we're not going to comply with these requests But how those disputes will be resolved whether what the red state would be doing would be constitutional is unclear which states law would apply in those circumstances is unclear and the great irony of it all of course is that if that's contested it's going to end right back up in the Supreme Court which in this draft is telling us that things are going to become much more peaceful When the court gets out of the abortion business and this goes back to the states Practically I'm wondering how they would enforce it unless they had a law like Texas's which makes every citizen and enforcer or a bounty hunter Yeah there are lots of different possibilities I think one possibility is sort of digital surveillance There are potential ways people can get caught law enforcement can buy your search data They can control your social media There may be programs along those lines There are likely going to be people who are found out when they seek treatment for medical complications which is terrible because it's going to disincentivize people from seeking treatment for medical complications including for conditions that aren't abortion like miscarriages And then I think finally people are likely to be caught the same way people are caught for using marijuana which is to say people in the most highly police communities will be more likely to be found out It's just simply because they're having more interactions with law enforcement which I think would most likely be unsurprisingly right people of color low income people people who are already disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system Another next battleground is medication abortion or abortion pills which account for more than half of recent abortions Is this the most workable option in the future for getting an abortion It may well be medication abortion obviously isn't applicable throughout pregnancy at the moment the FDA only authorizes it for the first ten weeks but it is becoming the preferred method and it is relatively hard to trace It is something that people can get in state sort of worship is illegal from organizations like aid access that operate internationally but I think in a posterior world no abortion method will be really free of potential consequences for people seeking it unfortunately What other areas do you think are going to be battlegrounds or litigated coming up Questions about how broadly the state defines abortion and whether those broad definitions create any constitutional questions For example if a state bans in vitro fertilization or if a state bans IUDs does that raise constitutional questions I think there'll be questions as you mentioned about out of state travel And I think finally there'll be questions about whether there will be a nationwide ban on abortion something that we've seen congressional Republicans float and something also that anti abortion groups are asking the Supreme Court to do down the road by essentially recognizing the person photo the fetus or unborn child Does it seem clear to you that contraception is another target ahead Potentially because within the anti worst movement there are very different definitions of what counts as an.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"justice alito" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Away. I've been doing broadcasting for 30 years and I'm evangelical Roman Catholic Presbyterian. So I'm on both banks and I've been pro life since the day the issue came up in 1973. And that moment of conception forward life of the mother exception. Now, the reasonable middle has gone in the country. And when you try and talk about this subject, even on a radio show, people turn it off, they don't want to talk about how are you going to get people to go see the matter of life on Monday and Tuesday. Well, people that see the movie, the pre screenings that we have had, people that are existing pro life has given you the feedback that they are re inspired. That their fired up for the cause to protect unborn life and to get involved in the pro life work. If they're already in pro life work, they're re inspired and they have this reviewed bigger to keep going. But this is a movie that has been changing hearts and minds. People are waking up to see how dire the need to look at the abortion crisis in our country is people are waking up to the truth and the facts. And they're being inspired to action. You find it ironic. Do you find it ironic that it's coming out just as the Dobbs decision? It may even issue on Monday, Tracy. Justices met Thursday. So it may issue on money into an opinion day at the court, the night of your movie. How ironic would that be? Well, nothing surprises me at this point because God has been in it this whole time orchestrating all the events and I don't even know this theatrical release has been planned for months out even before the Dobbs decision was on the Dobbs case was on the table. And so just the court leak and now coming Monday, there's a pending decision. It's just really the lord's orchestration. It's really amazing to look at to see and observe this happening. So couldn't have planned it that way. Tracy Robin, you could not have done so. You are the director of the matter of life. It is in theaters on Monday and Tuesday across the United States at fathom events for more details. Tracy, thank you so much for joining me. Good luck. I hope people turn out. And on Monday, the opinion may come down, the justices met yesterday. They scheduled an opinion release on Monday. It would be the prudent thing to do to release the decision early in order to protect the justices who are presently under threat. That's what my Washington Post column.
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"justice alito" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"Family. It looks a little different for everyone. For some, it's mom and dad. For others, roommates who feel like family. And for others, it's your significant other, their golfing buddies, your children, a high school soccer team starting lineup and oh look, they're all taking you up on the offer to stay for dinner. Really testing the limits of that phrase, the more the merrier. But no matter where you call home, Geico makes it easy to bundle and save on home and car insurance. Easier than making three frozen pizzas and assorted frozen veggies into a cohesive meal. Morning glory America, good Friday to you, Canada. I'm giving you it live inside the beltway on this Friday to the 13th and it's an unlucky day. I got the brown schedule last night. The browns NFL released the schedule. And there it is, we open away and we close away. Honestly, the NFL hates the browns. They've always hated the browns. I don't know why they hate Cleveland, but Roger Goodell, you know, he walked in and said, whatever we do in the schedule, the browns are gonna open away and close away. And we close at Pittsburgh. Even though they're lousy in a crummy team, we do open away in Carolina. And if we can't beat Carolina, it's gonna be a long season, but deshaun Watson probably going to be suspended. I don't know. But as a browns fan as a northeastern Ohio native is a true blue son of the land that schedules okay. But I have to complain because I am a true blue senator land two other. Things got me grumpy this morning. First of all, I am never surprised on TV. I've been doing radio and television for 33 years. Started in 19 89. And left that regular administration did some local television and did local radio then did local television hosting the nightly news in LA for ten years. Started this show on July 10 in the year 2000. And they've been doing national ads on special report last night, which I'll get to in just a second. So I'm not easily surprised by any. I'm surprised by 9 11. Generally simo and I and Adam were on the air for, I don't know, 6 or 7, 8 hours that day. And that was a horrific surprise. The great collapse you'd wake up every Monday morning during the Great Recession, the economic crisis of 2008. That was a surprise. The collapse of Afghanistan under Biden, the runaway from that. That was a surprise. But I'm not surprised on television. I'm usually prepared. They tell you here the stories we've may or may not be going to. And I hadn't seen last night. I was on special report, Brett was out Shannon breen was in. With Jeff from Reuters and The Wall Street Journal, as the panel. And Shannon throws up a bit of tape of Janet Yellen and my jaw. I mean, she had a Yellen is very smart. She was the chair of the fed reserve. She's the Secretary of the Treasury. She said silly things about abortion and its relatedness to the economy, which are just stupid. But she has to do that because I understand that the left leg of the Democratic Party. She's not a left winger. She's a serious person. So when she said this, I think, for the first time ever, I let my jaw drop on television after 30 years of television, can we play that clip? It's clip number 23. And here, there's a lot of back and forth on that. There is The White House calling out the oil companies as bad guys as people are profiting off of difficult circumstances and saying that they aren't using domestic production they're saying, this isn't something that happens overnight. We can't get approval for some of these projects. And there are major investments involved. Where do you come down on this? Well, I come down that secretary Yellen actually made me draw back in wonder when she said the production companies are not willing to produce. This very day, the administration canceled oil and gas leases in Alaska. Last week they went through them in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course we can go back to Keystone. This is an anti energy administration. And that, of course, as Kimberly just said, increases pressure, energy markets are forward looking. And so long as they see ahead of them, obstacles from every department regulatory impediments from every official with a pen and a bureaucratic sense of mission, they're not going to produce. I just can't actually believe that Janet Yellen said it's the producer's fault. When Joe Biden is throwing every obstacle in the way he can of lowering gas prices. So that's to me, it was genuine disbelief. And I try not to show genuine disbelief. I'm a professional. I'm not supposed to be surprised. All right? Bong bong surprises me occasionally. Dash Bon bong. And he'll occasionally break into my narrative and surprise me, and I'll be surprised by that. I'm surprised that Jacob has learned the intricacies of the broadcast because general Ben is departing into the wilderness, rumbling off like gentle Ben used to go away on the 1960s TV show, rustling among the leaves and wandering into the Woods and we'll see Ben again someday when we have an emergency we'll wake him up and get him into the studio. But Adam young man and general Lisa Mellon and I have seen it all done at all. We are not easily surprised. So I was surprised. But I wasn't surprised by the second go around on the panel because they're holding a COVID summit. They'll do anything to keep Joe Biden in The White House not talking. That's the objective is to get Joe Biden on tape, but not to let him talk. So if you begin every day and you run claiming The White House and your objective is to get the president on camera so the country knows he's alive, but not to let him talk, I know. Let's do a COVID summit. And everybody else can talk. So they asked me about the COVID summit last night, cut 24. So Hugh, how do you convince the average American that we need billions more dollars for something that they seem like they may be coming to terms with as part of daily life? It can not be done because the American people don't believe it. Those who want to be vaccinated and boosted are vaccinated and boosted. And they are traveling and they are living their ordinary lives. A COVID summit will do nothing except add cliches to the boosters. They're trying to turn the page away from the economy of the United States. The American people are over COVID and they're not going to go back to COVID. And I think the administration knows that, but they got to do something with the president that doesn't let him wander around a microphone in hand in an audience making gaffes. So that's today's news cycle. We'll get lots of pictures of the president, but he's not allowed to say anything. They figured that out..
The Charlie Kirk Show
Why Director Tracy Robinson Created New Film 'The Matter of Life'
"Show today, and I certainly do. We have Tracy Robinson, director of the new film, the pro life film, the matter of life, Tracy Robinson, welcome to the Charlie Kirk show. Thanks for having me. It's an honor to have you. I mean, I was getting prepped for this segment. I was asking your team, I was like, so what is she is she the director and they're like, yeah, she's the director, the writer, the producer, the executive producer. She financed the film. Before we launch into it, I want to play just a quick promo from the movie, so to kind of get our audience in the vibe and understand what we're dealing with here. Cut 72 play right now. I think this is the battleground culture issue in America today. I believe that being pro life is the most progressive value that we can have. She's got to know when she takes that pregnancy test. The hurt church is not going to treat her like the pharisees tried to treat the woman caught an adult shop. As the church we can't just vote pro life, we have to be pro love. That's just a 32nd. I know you got a lot some longer trailers as well. Tracy, but tell us about this film, tell us why you made it. The timing is unbelievable with the Dobbs leak, justice Alito's majority draft opinion. What made you make this film? Well, the matter of life clarifies the abortion issue, we tackle the issue of abortion from the science of embryology, the history of how we got to this point in our society. And we also incorporate powerful personal stories redeeming personal stories of people overcoming just tremendous circumstances, and we also highlight just the amazing things that are actually going on in the pro life movement right now, particularly around the pregnancy care side. And what sparked the vision for this film was actually, when I first heard the pro life case, this was back in
The Charlie Kirk Show
Chicago's Lori Lightfoot Urges 'Call to Arms' Against Supreme Court
"We're going to lead the show today with Lori Lightfoot. Because it's just, it's just shocking. What's going on? Regarding some of these hysterical left wing reactions to the leaked scotus opinion by justice Alito. Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot, I'm reading from the post millennial issues call to arms over U.S. Supreme Court. Lightfoot tweeted Monday night to my friends in the LGBTQ+ community. The Supreme Court is coming for us next this moment has to be a call to arms. She followed that up with. We will not surrender our rights without a fight, a fight to victory. Now, what makes this particularly appalling is if you contrast mayor lightfoot's tweets with that of her tweets around January 6th, 2021. During which she tweeted, I am in disbelief with what is unfolding in D.C. right now. President Trump and his enablers incited this violence, shame on every elected official in Congress and elsewhere who fomented this anti democratic insurrection by extremists. This is not democracy. This is a disgrace. So what's good for the goose should be good for the Gander here, miss
Mark Levin
Sunny Hostin Cares More About Polls Than Justices' Safety
"Hey there's this sunny hostin kare go I was watching a lot of the protests that were happening outside of some of the justices homes And my understanding is that justice Alito has had to go into hiding Because of this draft opinion that was leaked And while I think it is terrible that a justice would have to go into hiding I think it is really clear to the justices now that as Anna mentioned 64 to 66% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court should uphold rope What does that have to do with anything If 64 to 60% 66% of the Americans in the 1850s supported slavery or segregation we have a system that's set up where the courts adjudicate They don't sit there and see what 64 66% of Americans want Number one number two that is a lie What kind of abortion are we even talking about The vast majority of Americans oppose partial birth abortion When it's explained to them So the media censor it You will not find sunny hostin Arguing let's run a video of a partial birth abortion So everybody can know this isn't a baby It's about the woman's body and it's a choice Why not sunny
The Charlie Kirk Show
Far Left Protests Erupt Outside the Home of Justice Alito
"Hey everybody, welcome to this episode of the Charlie Kirk show. It's Monday and this is producer Andrew culvert filling in for the one and only Charlie. Kirk, who? Is rightly away on his anniversary trip. He has been married for a year, folks, to the wonderful Erica. They are taking some well deserved time off, Charlie works harder than basically any man I've ever met. I would say basically, but probably yes. It's most certainly is true. So we're glad that he's taking some well deserved time off. In the meantime, we have news to cover. And I'm honored, as always, to be behind the microphone, filling in for Charlie Kirk. All right, well, listen. There's a lot of news as I've already said. Mainly, the lead story over the weekend was the protests going on around the homes of the Supreme Court Justices. We have reports of doxing their homes. We have reports of their addresses. We have reports that justice Alito and his family have been moved to an undisclosed location as pro abortion activists in Virginia, Maryland assembled outside of the homes of these justices, including Brett Kavanaugh's home, where they chanted, we will not go back and picketed with signs. Earlier this week, Alito even canceled an appearance at the 5th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals judicial conference because of these far less far left
Mike Gallagher Podcast
Kirsten Gillibrand: These Justices Have Crossed a Line
"Let's have some peace and quiet. Unless you're Kirsten gillibrand, my friend texted me over the weekend, like I said when I was flying back saying you can't believe the way Kirsten gillibrand. The New York senator is ranting and raving to Jake tapper on CNN. Here's a little bit of what she sounded like. I'm very concerned that these justices have crossed a line that no one believed would be crossed. That they would purposefully create the impression that they would not overrule settled precedent and that it was not only deserving of do weight and the importance of precedent, but because it had been reaffirmed that it deserves more weight and then go ahead and overturn it, especially with the reasoning that justice Alito makes in this draft opinion. It's outrageous. And so Jake, back to the point. I think we should get rid of the filibuster. I think we should vote for our values. I believe we should fight for everything we believe in at this moment. This is about basic equality. It's about whether women in America have a right to make these decisions. Whether they have a right to decide who and when they have children with under what circumstances, you know, I wish Jake tapper would have said, senator, are you glad your mom didn't abort you? I mean, it's Mother's Day. Are you relieved that your mom made the choice to bring you into the world?
AP News Radio
Senate to vote on protecting abortion rights
"The the the the Senate Senate Senate Senate is is is is scheduled scheduled scheduled scheduled to to to to vote vote vote vote Wednesday Wednesday Wednesday Wednesday on on on on protecting protecting protecting protecting abortion abortion abortion abortion rights rights rights rights now now now now that that that that the the the the Supreme Supreme Supreme Supreme Court Court Court Court could could could could overturn overturn overturn overturn roe roe roe roe V. V. V. V. Wade Wade Wade Wade the the the the landmark landmark landmark landmark decision decision decision decision which which which which granted granted granted granted it it it it Republican Republican Republican Republican senator senator senator senator Lindsey Lindsey Lindsey Lindsey Graham Graham Graham Graham says says says says he he he he agrees agrees agrees agrees with with with with justice justice justice justice Alito's Alito's Alito's Alito's leaked leaked leaked leaked draft draft draft draft decision decision decision decision that that that that Rowe Rowe Rowe Rowe created created created created a a a a constitutional constitutional constitutional constitutional right right right right that that that that didn't didn't didn't didn't exist exist exist exist and and and and tells tells tells tells fox fox fox fox news news news news Sunday Sunday Sunday Sunday finally finally finally finally elected elected elected elected officials officials officials officials have have have have a a a a say say say say about about about about life life life life and and and and the the the the conditions conditions conditions conditions of of of of an an an an abortion abortion abortion abortion I I I I think think think think that's that's that's that's the the the the way way way way it it it it should should should should be be be be he he he he says says says says Democrats Democrats Democrats Democrats don't don't don't don't have have have have the the the the votes votes votes votes they they they they need need need need senator senator senator senator Amy Amy Amy Amy Klobuchar Klobuchar Klobuchar Klobuchar tells tells tells tells this this this this week week week week with with with with George George George George Stephanopoulos Stephanopoulos Stephanopoulos Stephanopoulos her her her her party party party party has has has has a a a a plan plan plan plan if if if if we we we we are are are are not not not not successful successful successful successful then then then then we we we we go go go go to to to to the the the the ballot ballot ballot ballot box box box box we we we we marched marched marched marched straight straight straight straight to to to to the the the the ballot ballot ballot ballot box box box box and and and and the the the the women women women women of of of of this this this this country country country country and and and and the the the the man man man man who who who who stand stand stand stand with with with with them them them them will will will will vote vote vote vote like like like like they've they've they've they've never never never never voted voted voted voted before before before before the the the the house house house house passed passed passed passed legislation legislation legislation legislation in in in in September September September September protecting protecting protecting protecting abortion abortion abortion abortion rights rights rights rights I'm I'm I'm I'm Julie Julie Julie Julie Walker Walker Walker Walker
WNYC 93.9 FM
"justice alito" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"News quiz Forget Bart's alona you're going to build bowel I'm Bill Curtis And here's your host A man whose job today is to be funny about abortion It's Peter sagal Thank you Bill and thank you fake audience I fake missed you The TV show of the spring is severance the creepy dystopian drama about going to the office the perfect companion to our creepy dystopian reality returning to the office later on we're going to be talking to the star of that show Adam Scott but first it's your turn the number to call is one triple-A wait wait That's one 8 8 8 9 two four 8 9 two four Now let's welcome our first listener contestant Hi you're on wait wait don't tell me Hi this is Daniel viner calling from Houston Texas Hey how are things in Houston Things are excellent in Houston Intricate What do you do there I'm a psychiatrist Are you really Yes I'm a third year psychiatrist resident at Baylor college of medicine Wow I am going to guess just looking around at everything that psychiatry is a growth field right now You know there doesn't seem to be a lack of recruitment No no I'm sure they're already you're not even in practice yet and they're probably lining up outside your door Well Daniel welcome to the show let me introduce you to our panel this week First up it's a comedian whose Edinburgh fringe festival show will be at assembly This August it's Emmy blotnick Hello All right Next you can see him live at the algonquin commons theater in Ottawa Canada on May 20th all of his tour dates are over on Maz jobrani dot com It's Maz job brawny Daniel is here and people in his time Hi Mark And you can see her June 11th and Joaquin Illinois at the genesee theater and her new HBO special cats cops and stuff is now out as an album everywhere It's Paula poundstone Hey Daniel All right Daniel you're going to play who's Bill this time Bill Curtis of course is going to read you three quotations from this week's news if you can correctly identify or explain two of them you will win our prize any voice from our show you might choose in your voicemail Are you ready to go Let's do it All right here is your first quote Make that sector is mandatory That was a sign carried a protest this week after a decision leaked that what ruling would soon be overturned Roe V wade Exactly right Politico published a draft Supreme Court opinion on Monday that would if enacted overrule roe the draft opinion by Samuel lolito is so angry it reads like the unabomber's manifesto but with footnotes And it does not help that justice Alito wrote the entire 96 page opinion with letters cut out of magazines So on Monday night of this week we found out that the Supreme Court was about to set women's rights back 50 years but at the very same moment at the Met Gala Billie Eilish was wearing a gown made from sustainable materials so let's call it a wash It was sort of ironic that that we got that one piece of terrible terrible news while people were at this useless event Yeah Well I mean it's nice to watch It's a nice distraction from terrible news Yeah absolutely It's like if there was little tchotchke key rings at the Auschwitz we went right there All right yeah Now if rho is in fact overturned it's going to create a ton of traffic from states that instantly ban aboard into those who don't So get ready for a lot of signs right by the border for crazy Dave's fireworks and competent Dave's women's health services I will only go to competent Dave I think that's why There's an expert Dave I would see him You know I did competent Dave's good enough Now we should all this is a draft of course expect the actual opinion next month after justice Alito polishes his material by performing it at smaller clubs around the country Right after the headliner who was absolutely going to be Louis C.K. I wish you know this is the one show where Will Smith should show up and slap the guy I mean that would be great Right now right now Alito is yelling to his wife How do you spell barefoot All right here is your next quote It's worse than kids It's an animal That was a woman named Ashley jeans He was talking about people bringing the pets they bought during the pandemic Where Back to shelters No no Not at all Remember people bought them because they were working at home all day and were lonely so they could work Exactly to work people are returning to the office and all the folks that bought pets during the pandemic are demanding that they be allowed to bring those pets to work And if your office does not end up smelling much worse because of this you have COVID It'll be so cute at the bottom of your little cubicle You can put a little litter cubicle Yeah I actually it's in my contract here that my dog has to take all my phone calls So while we're doing the show it's really a job This is what I'm trying to say Does your dog place your calls to like a Hollywood agent Please hold for Emmy Oh yes yes You can work the board really well Really it's weird We are going from working at home to being home at work It's a real short walk from bringing your pet to work to bringing your kids to work so you can ignore them there too We got a pandemic puppy I had never had a pet before because I was born in Iran Yeah and Iran dogs are just not as big as they are here So when I was a kid when I was like 5 years old or so I asked my dad for a dog and he got me a rooster So I had a rooster in Iran Well I'm sorry what You asked your father for a dog and he comes home with a rooster No the culture the culture wasn't a dog culture The culture was The kid wants an animal Let's just get him any animal It'll do What was the rooster's name His name was Rahim Rahim the rooster That's awesome Yeah so but yeah but now I got a dog And now I take her wherever I go And I find out do you in fact do you all stand up so you take your dogs with you on the road and on stage with you None of the lever here but now when I walk around Texas stand ups are by day we have nothing to do So we roam the streets going store to store and find out what stores welcome your dogs and what stores don't Like coffee shops welcome your dogs Grocery stores don't welcome.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"justice alito" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"From Bloomberg radio I've been talking to professor Stephen vladic of a universally of Texas law school about the leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion striking down a woman's constitutional right to an abortion Let's talk about the opinion itself And a line that's been quoted a lot is that Alito said Rowe was egregiously wrong from the start Critique his reasoning in the draft Well I mean since the draft is it is top to bottom and exercise and motivated reason I mean roe you know whatever else might be said about it justice blackman did try very hard to explain exactly what he was doing He tried very hard to explain the baseline right to privacy that we got from Chris wald and that the draft opinion adopts does not purport to repudiate What complicates the matter when we get an abortion case is that you have countervailing interests You have the interest of the pregnant woman but you also have the state's interest in protecting what justice black and calls potential life And so I think what's frustrating about the draft opinion June is that it really doesn't take row seriously It just sort of accepts as a default proposition rose wrongness And then I think goes into even more detail about the difficulties any time the Supreme Court recognizes rights that justice Alito says are not deeply rooted in our historical tradition But of course that would call into question a whole lot of stuff beyond row So I guess what is striking about the draft opinion is that it's not an effort really to persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded that roe is wrong And it's not really even an effort to convince the reader that roe is wrong on its own term Does Alito just throw precedent out the window as he's done before in for example 2018 When he threw out a 30 year old precedent in saying that government employees have a constitutional right not to pay union fees Because yes I mean I think here we're seeing just how little regard and respect That justice Alito seems to have first started decisis for the principle that all comes to be equal The court should follow his precedence Alito's draft opinion does try to offer at least some argument for why Rowan Casey shouldn't be followed as a matter of story decisive What's ironic about those arguments is that those were the very arguments that the joint opinion in Casey by justices O'Connor Kennedy and suitor had relied upon And so he basically has to say well they were either they were wrong in 1992 or things have changed dramatically in the last 30 years and I'm not sure either of those are true So part of why I think that's important again I think folks who want to be persuaded will be persuaded But part of why that's important is because if this is the sort of casual and cavalier attitude that justice Alito and whoever else signs its opinion is going to have towards stare decisis why shouldn't we be worried about other rights Why shouldn't we be worried about griswold And contraception or about Lawrence versus Texas and same sex sodomy Or even Alberto fell in same sex marriage I mean the question is when the draft opinion says this is just about abortion But it takes an approach to start a decisive that calls into question all prior decisions recognizing enumerated constitutional rights There's a pretty jarring contrast there Is the reasoning so wrong or is the language so extreme that he may lose some of the 5 justices You know we'll find out I mean I guess one theory that I think is not implausible for why this opinion leaked out is that perhaps there was a separate opinion written by chief justice Robert who according to the Politico story accompanied the leak did not vote to overrule Rowan Casey at conference perhaps there was a separate opinion that was sufficiently compelling and or critical that someone was worried that at least one of the justices who had voted to overrule Rowan case the conference might be softening And I do wobbling And so I've always thought that one of the better theories here is that the leak was designed to actually lock in the 5 votes to overall rowing cases since now it would be very obvious to everyone if when the final decision comes down this is not where the court ends up That someone flip flop So we don't know if that's what's happening We won't know perhaps even when the final decision comes down If that's what happened but it seems like at least a possibility So is there a chance at least that roe may not be reversed in the end I mean never say never Jude Rowan Casey are themselves a good lesson here and then the original vote as conferencing Casey when the case was argued during the October 1991 term was to overrule row and we know what happened We know the court didn't So I think it's possible that what we get when the court hands down its final rule in doesn't look like this The problem is that because of the leak and this is why I'm skeptical that the leap came from the dissenters Because of the leak I think that makes it a lot harder for justices who might have been pushing Alito to moderate the justice who might even be turned off by the opinion to not just line up behind it What's startling to me is that it's been less than two years since Amy Coney Barrett joined the court and they're ready to overturn roe So am I just being naive that this is awfully fast I mean we've talked before about how the chief justice likes to do change in moderation This is just a wholesale reversal Well I mean dude I think this has been one of the themes that folks have been trying to point out since justice Barrett replaced justice Ginsburg Like yes when Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy in 2018 that created a very solid 5 to four majority but with the chief justice as basically the speed break and with the chief justice and his preference for moderate I would say moderation but for sort of incrementalism I think that's the right word That would be what decided how fast the court moved Well it's been clear now right For the better part of the year and a half that is no longer up to the chief And we've seen sort of smaller and less significant examples of the court moving much faster than the chief might be inclined We've talked before due to about some of these shadow docket rulings where the chief has joined the three liberals in dissent because he's been set the court is moving too quickly by changing the law through unsigned unexplained orders So I think if this is where this ends up with a 5 to four or 5 to one to three rule in getting rid of our own Casey that really is the denouement of a pattern that has been building since the day justice Barrett joined the court and it's just further proof of how this really is no longer the Roberts court How will that affect the legitimacy of the court in the eyes of the public And I think we're going to see what we've already been seeing which is just further polarization And I think a further wise of the divide between those Americans who view the court is legitimate if for no other reason than because they like what the court is doing And those of you that court is illegitimate whether because they don't like what the court is doing because they think the court is doing it inappropriately And I guess one of the things that leaves me deeply worried about the course of institution is that I would think it would be in the court's interest to care about that latter group that it would be in the course interest to actually want to have at least some semblance of legitimacy even among those not inclined to agree with the results of its decision I mean this was the theme of justice Barrett's speech at.
WCPT 820
"justice alito" Discussed on WCPT 820
"This right now is Paula poundstone who is currently on the floor laughing harass off Right Okay Trump's we have any Do we have an ETA on when okay hi Carl Hello Oh okay No we can hear him like a who and whoville Yeah Okay How are the settings going on that thing that we use every morning for every guest Okay Let me give you some privilege I appall in the meantime Oh my God I hate everyone this morning Okay here we go Pramila jayapal Opinion by justice Alito and I read the whole opinion It is really an important thing to read because it is so terrifying In it he says that essentially there is no right that has guaranteed to you unless it is specifically mentioned somewhere in the constitution which is a document that was written 200 years ago Thank you Oh my God she was on fire yesterday One more senator congresswoman jayapal Are we really saying that the values of that time are going to hold to today And what does that mean about cases like loving the Virginia on interracial marriage about same sex marriage about all of the things that we hold to be settled law questions today I think this is a serious issue for all Americans to care about because I think it is not just about abortion It is about a whole series of issues including your privacy Yes be careful clarence Thomas you might cancel out your own marriage in your crazy insurrectionist wife What Hi Carl are you there Hello Yes Okay Thank.
WTOP
"justice alito" Discussed on WTOP
"Gonna be great Cofounder Brandon McKay hern presents live music Saturday and Sunday So we got Joyce rice We got Larry Jones We got RICO nasty which is a DMV native We got young jeezy which is classic We have wale and Friends which is gonna be a super crazy set We have little dirt 21 savage and the end of the night with Ari Lennox who was yet again another DMV native So we're super excited about Saturday The fun extends even beyond the music We also have broccoli worlds where our Ferris wheel will be and we have rise and games Find out more on YouTube P dot com I'm Jason for LAW to be news You're with dean lane I'm WTO P The graph Supreme Court opinion that was leaked to Politico this week is just that a draft But legal scholars and political experts are already talking about the potential fallout from a decision to overturn abortion rights as secured in the high court's 1973 roe V wade decision and later upheld in 1992 and the ruling Planned Parenthood V Casey This morning Irwin shimmering the dean and the Jesse H chopper distinguished Professor of law at the University of California Berkeley school of law joins us with his take about the draft itself the ruling and whether the final version will be any different There are 5 votes on the court to overrule roe versus wade I think the tone could be different Justice Alito's tone in the draft opinion is very harsh saying that roe was egregiously wrong exceedingly poorly reasoned Other just the majority might want to softer tone Not so insulting to their prior colleagues on the Supreme Court And so or when if and when the final ruling is made and if roe is overturned more than half of states are expected to ban most if not all abortions Who will this affect most profoundly It will affect poor women in teenagers abortion will remain legal in places like California in New York in Illinois Women with resources and states where abortion is illegal will travel to places like California New York and Connecticut Illinois But poor women who don't have resources teenagers they're the ones who are going to face the choice to an unwanted child in an unsafe abortion In that draft ruling justice Alito says the right to abortion is not a constitutionally protected right because it's not mentioned in the text or considered when the constitution was ratified but doesn't that apply to a lot of constitutionally protected rights Exactly Think of all of the rights that are protected under the word liberty and the due process clause So that mention of the text of the constitution the right to marry the right to procreate the right to custody one's children the right to keep the family together the threat of parents to control the upbringing of their children the right to purchase and use contraceptives The right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment throughout a consenting adults to engage in same sex sexual activity If the court pulls out the threat of abortion rights how can it do so without unraveling the fabric of all of these rights none of which are.
Today, Explained
"justice alito" Discussed on Today, Explained
"I think that there's a tendency to point to the last election, the last justice to retire or die. The last legislative session. This is actually something that has been the wheels on this have been turning for generations. This is a goal that the conservative legal movement has single mindedly pursued and they have at times they have lost. They've lost many times, even if they've been able to chip away at abortion rights, but they've been laser focused on sort of picking themselves back up and doing it. And what their goal is is to make abortion illegal everywhere. And so as shocking as it is, as enormous of a change in people's lives as this would be, they've been pretty open, that this is what they want to do for a really long time. And there are certainly things that accelerated us to this point, but it's really been a long time coming. And tomorrow's show, you're going to hear much more about the decades long crusade to undo roe versus wade. In fact, Noel king will interview one of the leaders of that crusade. You can read a rin carmone in New York magazine or at NY mag dot com are show today was produced by miles Brian and hottie mogg di, fact checked by Laura bullard and Tori Dominguez, engineered by Paul manzi and edited by Matthew collette and me, I'm Sean ramus from..
Today, Explained
"justice alito" Discussed on Today, Explained
"What do you think about when you hear the word philosophy? Maybe nothing at all, which is totally fine. Or maybe it makes you think of a stuffy seminar room, or marble bust of dead Greek guys. Or giant books, written a long time ago, with little to say about your life. But philosophy is meant to be accessible to everyone. At its best, it speaks to issues we all face every day in the here and now. Vox conversations has a new monthly series called the philosophers. Each episode focuses on the ideas of a philosopher or school of thought from the past, and explains why they still matter today. I talk with some really smart professors, but this is not a college course. We're talking about things that are relevant and vital and we're interested in ideas that crystallize the world around us. Check out our episode on how Albert Camus can help us understand the war in Ukraine. Or our newest episode on how Hannah arendt describes the political dangers of loneliness. Listen to the philosophers with me, Sean hailing, every month, right in the vox conversations feed. We're back, today explained with orin carmone, senior correspondent at New York magazine, Erin, if this opinion drops in a few weeks, in the same shape, the draft was in. What would happen next? So about half of U.S. states already have laws on the books. Either old laws or they've passed so called trigger laws that are waiting for this exact moment that would make abortion either entirely legal or mostly illegal. What states are we talking about? So Texas, for example, the Supreme Court allowed it to ban abortion at 6 weeks, which was certainly a preview of where we are in this draft opinion. You've seen actually Texans moving heaven and earth and a substantial number of people being able to get abortions before 6 weeks, which is a testament to just the efforts that the clinics are doing to get them in, and many people going to other states like Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama. New Mexico, Colorado. So take Texas. They have a trigger ban on the books that says that if roe V wade is overturned, all abortions are illegal. So no longer would every individual who's been able to go before 6 weeks be able to go. And of all the states that I just named that have been, again, with great difficulty able to accept Texas abortion patients, Oklahoma just passed a law. I believe it's about to be signed by the governor, banning abortion at 6 weeks, but they could also just ban abortion wholesale. The Louisiana definitely another trigger state. Alabama. So in that entire region of the country, that basically leaves New Mexico and most likely Colorado were abortion would still be legal. As a Texan, if you could get an abortion fund to help you get on a plane, that might end up being your best bet. Anyone who's been paying attention to the news for the past year is aware that there have already been these extremely severe conservative restrictions placed on abortion throughout the south. How different is this trigger ban reality from the one that we're in right now? Well, I think for folks living in those states, it's already been incredibly difficult to access abortion. They are barred from using their Medicaid coverage. They are forced to jump through hoops like 72 hour waiting periods, multiple visits, they are forced to listen to inaccurate information, clinics have been closed down based on spurious regulations. But I think that if this opinion holds, we are about to see that it could always get worse. You know, I mentioned in Texas 6 week abortion ban has been in place, well, in a 100% abortion ban is going to impact those patients a lot more. Even though some people don't know that they're pregnant before 6 weeks, many people have still been able to get the abortion that they need before 6 weeks. A surprising number, I think. And so you're also going to see clinic capacity in states where abortion is going to remain legal. Be stretched. And so New Mexico is a place where a lot of people go, but it's mostly one clinic. You're going to see an expansion of telemedicine, but many of these hostile states have already made telemedicine abortion illegal. So you're also going to see something that researchers have found is happening in places like Texas already, which is that nonprofit organizations, including ones based overseas that are willing to push the boundaries of the law, are doing telemedicine sessions with abortion patients and mailing them pills. Now, this is medically very safe, as long as you have access to accurate information and the right medication. But legally, we've already seen folks being prosecuted for taking matters into their own hands. Again, it's safer than ever to quote self manage your abortion. The days of coat hangers do not need to be with us, but prosecutors who have already found out about this with abortion being legal have gone after people for ending their pregnancies with pills. So I think we're about to end up in a territory where the choice will be get on a plane if that's available to you, which we know is going to be really difficult for the most marginalized people. Drive many, many, many hours if you can even get an appointment, take matters into your own hands, which not everyone is going to be comfortable with, and it's not going to be medically indicated. Or be forced to remain pregnant against your will. Not long after Politico published this leaked opinion last night. People like senator Bernie Sanders said, you know, now is the time to pass legislation. And if we can't get 60 votes, we should end the filibuster and do it with 50. How plausible is any legislation in this moment? Well, in the current Congress, Joe Manchin has already made it clear that he doesn't support what's known as the women's health protection act, which would be the legislative solution to row falling. So there's already a math problem there. I mean, that was already brought to a vote. So Bernie's saying, let's do it with 50 votes, but they don't have 50 votes. They don't have 50 votes unless somehow Susan Collins, or at least some Murkowski decides to cross the aisle. So not only would there have to be a consensus to end the filibuster, they would also need more votes than they currently have. And then a legislative solution would also potentially end up in the Supreme Court. You know, and so for all Alito was saying now that this is something that should be left to the people's representatives, see what happens if the Supreme Court gets a nationwide abortion law that doesn't let Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. Ban abortion. How will those 6 three Supreme Court rule on that? We may not even get to that point, but that's an open question. So you're saying this isn't necessarily the end of abortion in the Supreme Court of the United States. Absolutely not. Some of the reporting that I'm doing now is about attempts in red states, not only to make abortion illegal within their borders, but to try to police with their residents do when they leave the state. So you had Connecticut this week passed legislation that seeks to protect their providers from lawsuits that might come from other states because there is already this movement to say it's not enough that I'm going to make abortion illegal within my borders. I'm going to try to prevent any, for example, this was a state in which it was proposed. Anybody from Missouri from leaving to the extent that you could enforce it to go to a state where abortion is legal. And that's a pretty terrifying frontier because it's already really, really, really hard to leave the state that you live in for a medical procedure. That should be very quick and simple and that is just a matter of changing your life. It's certainly much more life-changing to have a child. But to then the sort of next frontier that the Supreme Court may well be asked to consider if things move as they're looking right now would be, can they try to stop people from leaving their states and going to a more friendly territory for an abortion? And that's a pretty scary prospect..
Today, Explained
"justice alito" Discussed on Today, Explained
"Of roe V wade, there's going to be a lot that's familiar here. It's pretty much every mainstream conservative by which I mean it's a pretty extreme catalog of critiques of roe V wade. Before we get into the arguments in this draft opinion, can we just dial it back and talk about where this case even came from? What is the case Alito wrote this draft opinion for? For decades, conservatives in state legislatures have been passing laws that are kind of teeing up challenges to roe V wade. Testing how far the court is ready to go. So this particular law came out of Mississippi. It banned abortion at 15 weeks, which is later than some of the laws that the court has considered in this very term. But was set up, I think, to try to chip away at the viability standard, which is what roe and its successor, Planned Parenthood versus Casey have said that you can not ban abortion before fetal viability, which is this sort of somewhat arbitrary line which a fetus could hypothetically survive. And so all the attempts to get rid of the fetal liability line have been unsuccessful the court has not even agreed to hear them until this term. Probably because Trump was able to appoint three Supreme Court Justices. And when justice Ginsburg died and was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, Mississippi actually rewrote its questions that it asked the court to hear. It had previously asked the court to consider just whether a 15 week line is reasonable. And in the sort of later stage it filed a brief saying, our roe V wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, these precedents that have kept states from banning abortion, are they constitutional should they be overruled? So this went from being a case that would chip away further at roe V wade to a case that had the potential to overturn it. That's exactly right. And in oral argument in December, justice Breyer actually called out Mississippi for doing this. And it is particularly important to show what we do. In overturning a case, is grounded in principle. And not social pressure, not political pressure. Only, quote, the most convincing justification can show that a later decision overruling, if that's what we did. Was anything but a surrender to political pressures or new members? But once they realized that they had a stronger conservative presence on the court, again, not just Anthony Kennedy who had repeatedly declined to overturn roe being replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, but then justice Ginsburg being replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, it strengthened the sense that they could at least get to 5. And maybe even 6. Did people watching the court expect this possibility that this could be the case that finally overturns roe V wade after almost 50 years? There was nothing extraordinary about this Mississippi law. What was extraordinary is that the court agreed to take it. So once the court said, we're going to reconsider something that we've repeatedly said. You can not do. The mere decision to take that, although it only takes four justices to take up a case, usually they won't take up a case they think they're going to lose because they don't want to strengthen the existing precedent that says abortion is legal. Once the court says, this is up for grabs. Anybody who's paying attention can say something substantial is about to change here. And indeed, when the oral argument was heard in December, you could go back and read the summaries of it now and just see exactly what we read in the draft opinion, which is that 5 justices were openly hostile, not just to this idea of whether abortion should be legal at 15 weeks or not, but to the very underpinnings that for 49 years have governed American law. If you think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this court's history, there's a string of them where the case is overruled, precedent, Brown V board, outlawed separate but equal. And then you have John Roberts trying to theoretically find the middle line but that would also involve throwing out row without saying the words we're overturning roe. I'd like to focus on the 15 week ban because that's not a dramatic departure from viability. It is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. When you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the People's Republic of China and North Korea. Let's get a little more specific about what exactly justice Alito writes in this draft opinion. Sure. So in his draft, Alito says that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, he says, and this is a quote a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. So that's a sort of fallback that if the word abortion is not in the constitution, there's a sort of originalist argument saying it's not whether it's deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. He also says that due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment are not legitimate. Now these are the same arguments, the due process arguments. It's called substantive due process, have been used to underpin decisions involving striking down sodomy laws. The right for couples and single people to use contraception, the right to marry, but he says, don't worry, those opinions are totally safe because abortions fundamentally different. He says it destroys with those decisions called fetal life, what the law before us now describes as an unborn human being. So he says it's different because of the separate status of the fetus, which we are now kind of swinging the pendulum towards valuing the status of the fetus over that of the pregnant person, although he would never use that phrase. Why is he telling people not to worry about gay marriage or anti sodomy laws? Because they are right to worry about them. I mean, of course, just because he says, don't worry. It doesn't really mean anything. Because these are all cases that come from the same legal reasoning, the same precedence building on each other. They write to privacy right to liberty to some extent equality, so these are ones also that the conservative movement, I mean, Alito descent, for example, so did John Roberts in obergefell, the decision that made same sex marriage legal throughout the land. So if people would be right to worry about them, Alito also wrote the opinion and hobby lobby, which tacitly accepted that contraceptive forms used by millions of people are quote unquote aboard a patient despite any evidence showing that. The other thing that a leader does in this draft opinion is he responds to claims that you should not overturn roe because of stare decisis because of the principle that the court should move very, very slowly and try not to upend existing precedent because people rely on it in the law relies on it and it's just there's all sorts of reasons why the court has developed that you should not overturn major precedents. But he says that precedent does not compel unending adherence to rose abuse of judicial authority. So basically he says that from the beginning, the court should not have made this decision, this should return to the people's elected representatives. So he would like to basically put up people's individual reproductive decision making to a vote of the majority. He's saying this should be something that is legislated by Congress, not decided by the Supreme Court. By Congress or by individual states. He also says roe V wade only further deepened divisions in this country. It didn't solve anything. Yes. And to do so, he also relies on some of the critiques from the early 1980s that were developed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a law professor first and then as a judge on the D.C. circuit and to my mind as the author of a Ginsburg biography, it's kind of a troll. It's saying, look, even Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't like ro. But she didn't like roe because she thought that it needed to have equality reasoning. She thought that the government needed to fund abortions. She thought it didn't go far enough. And she didn't like the way it was written. And so it's a bad faith argument, but another way in which the Supreme Court has justified its decisions is to say, this is a contentious issue, but we need to hand down some kind of stable settlement for the country. And he says, it never did that because many people still oppose abortion. How many justices did Alito get to sign on to this draft opinion? We don't exactly know the answer to that. So Politico reported that it's unclear what chief justice John Roberts is doing or saying. There's some conflicting reports out there about this. He has the ability to either assign the opinion to himself if he's in the majority. Or to somebody else. But if he's in the minority, the next most senior member of the conservatives, in this case, it would have been the conservatives. And in almost every consequential case, clarence Thomas, actually, justice Thomas would have been the one to assign it. Now, justice Thomas has written many times about thinking that not only is row unconstitutional, but the entire framework of substantive due process needs to be thrown out. It doesn't exist in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's his opinion. So he may have not been able to keep a majority together with his own opinions. But it appears that what happened is that there's a majority which, again, on a court of 9, you need 5 justices, and that at some point, alita was assigned to write a majority opinion. Now, in the circulating of drafts, which is apparently what we are seeing, it has been known for justices to change their minds. So sometimes when an actual opinion is written and then a dissent is written, and this is really rare, but justices have talked about how, in the writing, in the arguments, there's a sort of intellectual or legal or political I would say haggling where they say, well, I would sign on to your opinion if X, Y, and Z or maybe, and this is, again, incredibly rare. Somebody reads a descent and says, actually, I'm so persuaded by the dissent that I'm going to change my vote. Now, about a week before this leaked, The Wall Street Journal editorial board, which is very plugged in. It has written before accurately about what chief justice John Roberts is thinking and trying to kind of keep him into the conservative fold. They said they claimed that justice Roberts was trying to write a sort of separate opinion that would peel off one of the conservatives. So if they indeed have 5 for Alito's opinion, they would just one person could fold or one person could join a slightly less extreme opinion in John Roberts direction. And even if they all agreed that the Mississippi law could be upheld, maybe the ultimate opinion would be less sweeping. Got it. So, what we know at this point is that someone at the Supreme Court leaked this draft opinion authored by justice Alito to Politico, but this is by no means the final word.
Today, Explained
"justice alito" Discussed on Today, Explained
"Last night, around 9 p.m. outside the Supreme Court of the United States sounded kind of like this. But by 11 p.m., it sounded more like this. But the curious thing is, the Supreme Court hadn't issued a controversial opinion. Instead, a historic one had leaked. On today explained, we're going to explore justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion that would overturn roe V wade and find out what this might mean for reproductive rights in the United States. Support for the show today comes from future, you know, the guy with the song about the masks on or the mask off no, I'm sorry, sorry, I'm getting no, I'm getting a message here. Future is the app shaking up how people think about exercise and self motivation. It might be by pairing you with your own personal fitness coach, future holds you accountable and helps you work towards your goals with the support of an expert, get started right now with 50% off your first three months at try future dot com slash explained. Again, that is try future dot com slash explained again not the rapper future, the app, the apper future. Goodbye. Decoder.
The Charlie Kirk Show
"justice alito" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"Important. Let's start with justice Alito. Asking the director for the center for reproductive health about viability. Play cut 51. Viability is a principled line, your honor, because in ordering the uncharted to see whether it is a principle line. Yeah, you agree with me at least on that point. That a woman still has the same interest in terminating her pregnancy after the viability line has been crossed. Yes, your honor, but the court balanced the interests and in ordering the interest of the state on the other side. The fetus has an interest in having a life. And that doesn't change, does it from the point before viability to the point after viability? In some people's view, it doesn't, your honor, but what the court said is that those philosophical differences couldn't be resolved. That's what I'm getting at. What is the philosophical argument? The secular philosophical argument for saying, this is the appropriate line. They can't answer that question. That's justice Alito in the head of the center for reproductive health. Now this is the best argument they got. Sotomayor says that a fetus is not a person just because it can feel pain. She says evidence of fetal pain is not proof of life, says fully grown and developed Sotomayor. Play cut 50 where she says a fetus is just responding to painful stimuli is the equivalent of a clinically brain dead person having a reflex response to painful stimuli. Hey, guess what son of a clinically brain dead people have constitutional rights too?
Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"justice alito" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"No apparent reason conversely clearly what's visible to the chief justice is big donors who are being harassed and threatened and terrorized and who want anonymity and privacy. But you know what is visible to sunny so to my or is dark money pouring into the system and it does feel as though and tell me again. If i'm just being too philosophical it just feels as though in a deep way. This court is adam ising into who you can identify with who is real to you. What suffering is real suffering You know mark just said like for justice alito if you have the temerity to suggest that a state is racist it will shoot him into orbit. That's like existential pain for him. And i just wonder. If part of the weirdness that i have been experiencing. And i guess now is a good time to talk about the fact that now justice gorsuch in an order on friday. It seems the justice. Gorsuch and thomas are gonna go after new york times. We sullivan there's something really deep happening here. In terms of the world's that these justices inhabit that there are bubbles that they don't necessarily see outside their world. And i guess i'm just wondering because you said so eloquently at the beginning it's always better to litigate in front of a court that has a center where their stuff is moving and people are can be picked off listening to what you're hearing today as somebody who argues before the court what happens in those eight one cases in those nine zero cases is it just as mark says everybody's being strategic or are the. Are there a handful of cases where the court all looks at the world and sees the same things all that was like brier s question. Dalia you went eight different directions. And i'm not sure where to start but wow so so i'll start though with your.
AM 570 The Mission
"justice alito" Discussed on AM 570 The Mission
"Got a lot to get to Kevin McCollough, just beside myself with the insane narrative that continues to try to be driven. Did you know, for example, that that man right there? Joe Biden, the former vice president, He is not the president elect. He stands up in front of the thing today with the office of the President elect. I circled that and put it on Instagram. It's not a thing you got to know It's not a thing. Also they they've been pressing the government Services administration trying to get access to the all the stuff that you get. When you're president elect it. You're not president Elect yet. Just slow down. Anyway. Welcome in someone who knows a little bit about how he's not. Yet the president elect is heading up the president's legal and investigative efforts in the state of Pennsylvania. He's been very busy the last number of days and he rejoins US Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Welcome back to Kevin McCullough radio. Oh, it's very nice to be with you. Kevin. You're being here. You're working around the clock. I hope you're getting some sleep at some point in time. What are we finding? What are we learning? We're learning a great deal first little we're getting enormous amounts of information from people. And very knowledgeable people, so it would be impossible to really describe to you the mountain of evidence. We have one of the things that it has to be corrected in this statement that the fake media makes that there's no evidence From the very, very first moment we presented evidence the first day the head of inspections in the Philadelphia Board came out and said they were being uniformly barred. I'm seeing any of the mail ballots. Remember the mail ballot for the very controversial ballot, right? Can easily that could easily be changed. They don't have verification other than the envelope. So In Philadelphia and in Pittsburgh and another Democrat places they are not allowing Republicans as they are required to by law to inspect the balance. So 304 100,000 ballots went by. The only person that knows if they're valid or not. Is the board of Elections. Political hack. In a city where every year they steal elections. I mean, they shall. Adelphia didn't steal this election. It would be the first election 60 years didn't well, let's is a profession in Philadelphia. Yeah, what they did for the entire day they exploded 50 Republican inspectors. Who are unable to see the ballot. So the balance could be valid that could be invalid. They could be empty. If you'd all be signed by the same democratic worker in the back room. We have no idea under the law of Pennsylvania. Every one of those ballots is illegal, so that's about 135,000 ballots that have to be taken out of the Philadelphia numbers. In Pittsburgh. There were 330 of those ballots. That's just our early town. But we filed the lawsuit and that will be able to take discovery. But on the numbers we can prove right now, with 50 witnesses. Biden is losing state of Pennsylvania. Well in that, and that is the key to that's the key to everything. But let me ask you also 20 boats that go from Biden to trump our next lawsuit. Which we are about three quarters the way there right now is in Michigan in Michigan. We have a similar number of thousands and thousands of votes. That we're not observed deliberately where Republicans were put in Corrales. Put so far away that they couldn't see the ballot. Again. Illegally in violation of Michigan law. But in Michigan, we have other big problems. We have an entire county. And from county that the morning of the election turned out the morning after the election, it turned out they had voters from Bible. Very strange, Big Republican County. Turned out that it was off by 2 to 1. The Dominion Software malfunction and recorded a Biden vote for Trump Trump vote provides. That has been since corrected. However, three quarters of Michigan used this defective Dominion, Sarah That appears never to go the other way. Never statistic. Oh, it's on how that happens. Yeah, Plus in Michigan, they did the same thing if they didn't Pittsburgh and in On Philadelphia. They quoted Republicans from the counting process of the of the mail in ballots, which makes all those ballots also illegal and we have witnesses in in in Michigan, who say that they were forced to backdate votes. Make it look like they came in on the third when in fact, they came in on the fourth and assist which again would make them invalid illegal ballot. But we have to sort through that. That number is also very, very close. You're jeopardizing the Bible lead in Michigan Mayor Let me ask you this. The Supreme Court did way in over the weekend, Justice, Alito said to the Pennsylvania Board of Elections. You have to segregate all of the post a PM election night. Now I've I've heard mixed reports. Mayor are they are the balance clearly enough mark that they're going to be able to do that, or did some of this subterfuge. Without any doubt they violated the order in two respects. First of all, they didn't properly segregate. Didn't probably say get anything right. They in fact are are observed. This couldn't see the ballots that they could see the handling of the ballots. In other words, they could see the white paper They couldn't see the handwriting and there were 20 to 30 FT. Away. They did see numerous occasions where the pole counter didn't even bother to look at the envelope. There's to be a book tour away, took the others through the way. It's supposed to look at the envelope to make sure it has a signature to make sure it looks valid to make sure it hasn't mailing address to make sure it's been postmarked. All that was avoided, they exist. Through women throwing it occasionally. It's seasoned, destroy about that. Might have been a trump out for all we know. So what's the recourse? How do you How do you deal with the segregated ballots? There are violations of Pennsylvania. There are dead people voting people who were forced to change their vote. There were people who were allowed to change their vote after it was over, and there were people that violated elite of Justice Alito's order Like backdating, a book. The vote came in on November 4th. They marked it down. It's November, sir, right? So then. Philadelphia, Annan pitch work, There are enough votes more than enough votes to overturn the election. So we are asking the state Legislature not to Certified vote that contains any of the other lawful votes. And if they did that, then they would certify a boat when Trump was winning by about 4%, and I wanna make sure my listeners know these are affidavit witnesses that you have. They're willing to go on the record and say This is what we saw will testify in court. If it comes to that. Oh, absolutely. I mean, we could we could go up to about 50 witnesses in court that would say this happened in This fertile and Philadelphia alone. Another 20 in Philadelphia. There's no doubt it happened. There's no doubt.