25 Burst results for "Justice Alito"
The Obamacare Decision by SCOTUS Shows They Are Cowards
"The obamacare decision by the Supreme Court today is expected. And I'll tell you why not, for reasons so called legal analysts have to say. Because once these unconstitutional laws take hold They're almost impossible to undo. So the Supreme Court by 5 to 4 with Justice Roberts, the chief justice, flipping Wasn't 12 years ago. Turning into a tax case. He wrote The, uh, really the the law into, uh And for two forever Ville. And so no challenge will ever upset it. And Justice. Alito's dissent was brilliant. Gorsuch joined with him. We got all this head counting going on on T V. You know what? But they don't get at any of the substance, of course. This was a tax case. That's what the Supreme Court turned it into. And then when the tax issue Was repealed on the individual mandate by Congress. Suddenly, it's not a tax case anymore. Suddenly it's a standing case. So the Supreme Court turned itself three times. Now on this law, Obamacare into a pretzel. And those lawyers who really are not constitutional lawyers, but maybe their former federal prosecutors or former defense lawyers. Maybe I don't know. Former bankruptcy laws or whatever this is how they use their green eyeshades. And so that's that's not what's going on here. These justices are demonstrating over and over and over again. What a bunch of cowards there. Comey Cavanaugh really, so far disasters. Hopefully, that will change over
Arizona’s Katie Hobbs calls Trump’s call to Georgia counterpart ‘appalling’
"Right now. Arizona's Secretary of state Katie Hobbs, says she's appalled at phone call President Trump had with Georgia's secretary of state about the election results. Along the call President Trump said he needed to find about 12,000 votes. Secretary Brad Rafts Burger dismissed and debunk all the president's allegations of voter fraud in Georgia. The state Republican Party is part of a case aiming to get to give Vice President Mike Pence the ability to overturn an electoral college vote, and that case is on his way to the Supreme Court. Chairwoman Kelli Ward says they sent emotion directly to justice Alito, which she hopes speeds up the process. That case was dismissed
"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.
"justice alito" Discussed on Newsradio 970 WFLA
"This is the Buck Sexton show. Former CIA analyst. Remember the NYPD look sexy book section. No way do Have Jenna Ellis off the Trump legal team. She's on the front line of this whole thing. She's joining us now live, Jenna. Thank you so much for calling in Absolutely thanks so much for having me so I I gave the audience a little bit of a primer on that. The Supreme Court denied injunctive relief today, but that's not the same thing is saying Because I have people text. Is it all over? No, it is not all over. But tell people what they need to know about. Pennsylvania and and let's go through some of the still active legal challenges. Yes, well importantly, this is Mike Kelly's lawsuit. It's not one of the Trump campaign's lawsuits, even though obviously there are ah variety of individuals and organizations that are very concerned about election integrity as well. They should be, including the Eiji of Texas that filed on a great case that we can talk about that in in front of the Supreme Court late last night, but importantly for Mike Kelly's student, Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court on Lee denied what's called emerges. See injunctive relief, which basically he was asking the court to stay. The certification of results pending the outcome of that case, and the Supreme Court denied that, but they did not deny the petition. For the writ of cert, which is the legal term. Of course, we're actually going in front of the Supreme Court and having them grant hearing the appeal, so the appeal is still pending. The case is still very much alive. It's only that injunction of the certification of results that was denied today. So all of the reporters need to correct their fake news headlines. Yes, tell me this. What Where? Where is what is the Trump campaign legal situation in Pennsylvania, specifically said, That's my Kelly's case. What is your case? Right. So in Pennsylvania right now, we had a appeal that went to the third Circuit on a very narrow issue that was denied. We have not yet appealed that to the Supreme Court. We do have another case that pending out of Pennsylvania that was the one on all of the late ballots that Justice Alito. Ordered as to be segregated out. That case has been pending for a couple of weeks in front of the Supreme Court. Whether or not it will be heard in unison, possibly with my Kelly's consolidated. Sometimes the Supreme Court does that That's very possible in this instance that that's the case that we have pending right now in front of the Pennsylvania are out of Pennsylvania. And of course, we also have the state Legislature Avenue where we have had The hearing's in front of state legislatures, including Pennsylvania, asking them to exercise their authority under the federal constitution to say for themselves, even without a court order, Listen, we look at what's happened in our state. All of the rules were a blatantly violated. We can't certify a false illegal results. And so we're going to take back the method of selecting our delegates and make findings the fact and determine what slate to move forward with, so that's been really the route that Mayor Giuliani and I have taken with the state legislators over the last two weeks and encourage them to exercise their constitutional authority because they're the last Uh, Dr Gap, the to really be the voice of the people and to make sure that corruption does not rain in elections and make sure that they're the ones that step in and say, No, we're not going toe send a false plate of delegate to the Electoral College were speaking of Jenna Alice. She is one of the lawyers representing the Trump campaign. In these various lawsuits, try to get to the bottom of what really happened and what fraud was. Play in this election. Jenna, You mentioned this Texas lawsuit, though from the Texas State attorney General, Can you please tell us about this? Because I don't think I mean, I know the media is not covering this stuff fairly, but I don't think they've even really. Covered this much at all. Yeah, which is actually shocking because this is a huge thing that a state attorney general is doing four other states. And so this is Texas that's doing for other states and basically telling them that you know your state did not follow the rules and your states for elections. And so this was an election. Official. Violation of all of the state rules. And because of that, then they're they're essentially disenfranchising the rest of the American public because with the certification of false results based on illegal activity, then that would tip the Electoral college on in favor of the candidate that didn't actually win. So this is a huge walk. Dude, it has what's called, of course, original jurisdiction where under Article three of the U. S Constitution that contemplates the judicial branch when a state Stu's another state then that does not go up through the traditional court route, But it's filed directly in the Supreme Court. So this is bypassed the rest of the lower court and I will be heard directly and friends Supreme Court because it's not an appeal. They can't deny it on even just a few minutes ago, we Learned that the court the Supreme Court, put this on expedited briefing schedule, which means that they know that this is a really important case to hear before December 14th. That's the date, of course, that the Electoral College is anticipated to vote. Even though we do have Supreme Court precedent in prior cases and prior elections that really it's the January 6th date, that is of ultimate significance is how the court put it..
"justice alito" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Patent simply on so flour and eggs. Justice Alito is like, Okay, Okay. Okay. What if the human genome is like a plant you find in the jungle about that? Suppose there is a chemical molecule in the leaves of a plant that grows in the Amazon and its discovered that this has Tremendous medicinal purposes. Let's say medicinal is, he said Medicinal. The highest court in the land is starting to sound like the highest court in the land. Okay? Yes, But as the smoke clears what starts to become obvious that's actually it's obvious that the justices are starting to lose patience with this. Philosophical argument. The isolation itself is not values. That's the problem that's adjusting if you cut off a piece of the kidney that that somehow makes that piece patent no, absolutely not. So what they did, and after just over an hour The oral arguments closed. Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted. And with that, after more than 30 years of gene patenting and four years of court hearings, it was in the hands of the nine justices to decide whether the stuff that makes us who we are should count as property. The day after the oral arguments, Chris fully retired from the law. This was his final case. And then he went back to his house in the burbs to wait for the opinion, and as he put it, sit around for the rest of his life. And two months later, I was sitting at home one morning. And I'm I'm sort of. I don't know, playing video games or you know something. I opened up my email and there was a email that I have been copied on. Which one A C L U lawyer was saying to another A C L U lawyer Did you see the Chris just won his case. It was the most anti climactic notice of a victory that I can possibly imagine. And one of the best cc's on an E mail I can ever imagine getting well. That's also true. Yes, the ruling was unanimous, the court said, quote. Mirriad did not create anything separating a gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention and quote the court did make an exception for something called C D. N A, which is a synthetic version of a team. Human genes that had merely been isolated. Those could no longer be patented and privately owned, and with that thousands of gene patents that had been granted over three decades, including various claims.
Philadelphia - Supreme Court Justice Alito Orders Pennsylvania Mail-In Ballots That Arrived After Election Day Be Kept Separate
"In a brief order, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said mail in ballots in Pennsylvania must be kept separate in case the high court has to weigh in on them. At Pennsylvania State Judge also allowed observers closer access to vote counters. Trump team has not been successful. So far with other cases. Judges in Georgia, Michigan, Nevada and Pennsylvania have denied motions to temporarily stop the count. In a statement, President Trump said, We will pursue this process through every aspect of the law to guarantee that the American people have confidence in our government.
Justice Alito temporarily grants Pennsylvania GOP request to enforce segregation of ballots that arrived after Election Day
"News. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has gotten directly involved in a legal dispute over ballot county. Pennsylvania. Fox's Shannon Bream explains county boards of election there were supposed to be segregating ballots that they got after eight PM on election day securely, locking them down separately for the time being. While the fight over whether those vote should be counted continues with the Pennsylvania GOP asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order after it was unable to get at least 25 of the county boards to confirm They've actually been segregating those votes. Alito has ordered every county election board in Pennsylvania to segregate out and secure those late arriving ballots for now the Pennsylvania GOP. It also asked the county board to be ordered not to do anything further with the ballots like tally them. Alito's said he wants a response from the
Justice Alito orders Pennsylvania officials to set aside late-arriving ballots
"Supreme court justice samuel alito in an emergency order as told the board of elections in every pennsylvania county segregate and hold every mail in ballot that was received after eight o'clock election night that's the deadline set by state law state elections officials unilaterally extended by a week the gop's lawsuit says they don't have the power to do that.
"justice alito" Discussed on AP News
"In the dissent, Justice Alito on Justice Thomas said that things need to change that They were basically hinting that they want to return. Oh felt and not necessarily allow same sex marriages. Clear about that. Here I go. 32 and one Corona virus Update. I'm Jackie Quinn with an AP News Minute President Trump Pack of the White House after being hospitalized for Cupid 19 and has touched off a firestorm with this message on Twitter for others. The president took off his mask standing and still The president took off his mask, standing and saluting at the South Portico, prompting rebukes for potentially in fact, ing others as he is possibly still contagious. So how far can cove in 19 spread through the air? The CDC says 6 ft, but says it's rare Our Ed Donahue reports. Other experts think it's common and more precautions are needed. Michigan's Health Department has issued a new mask requirement even though last week the state Supreme Court struck down the governor's emergency power to make such a mandate. Vermont officials say 26 migrant workers and a large apple orchard inshore, um, are now positive for covert 19. Vermont had one of the nation's lowest infection rates. I'm Jackie Quinn. The mood within the White House remain somber, with staff fearful they may have been exposed to the virus. Many learned about positive tests from media reports, and several were exposed without their knowledge to people the White House already knew could be contagious. Trump Still contagious has made it clear that he has little intention of abiding by best containment practices as he arrived back at the White House last night. The president defiantly removed his facemask and stopped to pose on a balcony within feet of a White House photographer. The White House says it's taking every precaution necessary to protect every staff member working on the complex. I'm Julie Walker. AP News I'm to McGuire.
Supreme Court throws out Louisiana abortion restrictions
"Been talking to Stephen Black professor at the University of Texas Law School about the decision today We're a divided Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that opponents said would have left the state with only one abortion clinic. Chief Justice John Roberts provided the crucial vote during the court's liberal justices in a 5 to 4 majority. So Justice Stephen Breyer, who also wrote the majority opinion in the Texas Case, wrote the majority opinion here did he reiterated his reasoning in the Texas case, or did he just follow precedent? No American. I think a lot of the plurality of him by the prior was very much not just reiterating what he wrote for the majority four years ago in the home of health case, but also do not carefully trying to explain why that decision for your so should control the case. Why the Louisiana line is not in any material way. Actually, or legally different fromthe law that the court threw out in Texas four years ago. If I can, you know for Brier, the queue is to show why these cases are not the similar And you know, I don't get you. Justice. Roberts actually agreed with that. I think you just agreed with the endorsement of the analysis from the earlier decision on hold and help if that's why he felt obliged and compelled to write separately. What was the thread running through the dissenting opinions? What's interesting about this case is, you know if you read the sentinel opinions that actually very little tune about roar, Casey and a whole lot about standing, you know, I think for the defenders, the ground they were hoping in this case would be resolved on Was that the abortion providers June Medical Services, etcetera weren't proper parties. The challenge Louisiana long the first place that would have allowed the court sidestep a major ruling on the stuff into scope of the right to pursue a pre viability abortion. But of course, there were consequences all his own indignant much harder for a court to hear these kinds of pieces going forward, so No, I think for the dissenters for justice Promise Justice Alito. The quarters from Kavanaugh know there at least stated opposition here with principally to the court allow in this case to reach America at all. I suspect June that that no one will be surprised if no. Were those marriage to be properly before them. They just hostile to them that know the descent maybe focus on stand them, but I think it's not hard to imagine that there are objections on the merits behind them as well. So during his confirmation hearings, Justice Cavanaugh was questioned again and again on Roe v. Wade, and he said he would follow precedent. Did he veer from that in this decision? I don't think so. I mean, just, Kavanaugh wrote only a very short to page dissent, although he joined a large chunk of just much longer defense. You know, I think Kavanaugh is a little bit cagey and careful on exactly that point. Doesn't say a lot about roar. Casey. He really put it on the procedural question of whether these planets had standin on why he thinks that matter should have been read ended the trial court traditional back finding on that question. But, you know, I think folks are not gonna have trouble reason. If you imagine this is You know, suitable and without necessarily saying that he's probably a reliable vote for the conservatives in a case where the merits of an abortion restriction really aren't properly before the court. You know, I don't think it's directly inconsistent with anything, he said during the confirmation process, But Matt it certainly doesn't come running like wall. We've heard a lot about Justice Roberts Justice Gorsuch Has Cavanaugh been a reliable conservative vote during his first term here, I think, for the most part, I mean, I think there's one or two paces June where You know he's been on the other side. We're siding with the progressive on Ly one that comes to mind when you was the deciding vote on. It wasn't an especially major contention case that without an antitrust case You know, I think he's probably been in some respects more reliable in a smaller data set as a conservative vote than justice. Gorsuch has been, obviously, of course, it's you know, it's fresh off of the Majority opinion he wrote in the LGBT discrimination case, You know, so I think I think it's pretty clear that injustice. Cavanaugh, the conservative, got what they were hoping for. Um Whether that hold across the larger data set, we'll see. But you know, I also think it's also a sign of the times. June. You know, we had a 30 year period We had a Supreme Court with No. Two very obvious swing. That justice is Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, where you could see these pretty profound shift in majorities from one case to the next. That's not where we are. Now we have a solid conservative majority and results, like the abortion case, don't change that. I think they just show that there are at least some elements that even the solid conservative majority won't transgress. This was the third time in two weeks that Chief Justice John Roberts disappointed conservatives in a blockbuster opinion. Is he now the next Justice Kennedy Oh, I think it's been clear June since Justice Cabin always confirmed to the Supreme Court that in most, not all but most of the high profile, divisive partisan No social and contentious cases before the Supreme Court. The departure of death of Kennedy puts to Justice Robert from the middle, and I think, you know we're seeing that this term in spades. It's not just his decisive vote today in the Louisiana abortion paid not just his majority opinion in the doc a case you know that he also joined Justice Gorsuch. In the LGBT discrimination case, So you know they're going to be out liars where it's not the chief Cruz the swing vote, But I think you know in the high profile cases more often than not, yes, where there's a 5 to 4 majority, and it's No for the conservatives who sent him the the one who will have been personally to switch sides with the chief justice John, I don't think that's because anything about the chief has changed. I think that because No. The court itself has changed. And because the kind of dispute the court is taken are increasingly grounds new towards ones where any of those five justices were going. Be disinclined Tio. Ride with the quote unquote conservative position. It's going to be John Roberts. Using this opinion and looking forward at some of the other opinions that are coming out, especially the decision on the subpoenas for Trump's financial records. Does this tell us anything about how justice Roberts may vote on that? I really don't think so. You know, I don't think that this is any kind of broader shift or pattern in how the chief justice instead of his job, you know, I think he's he's able to take that from cases differently. I mean, you know, right after we got the abortion opinion this morning, we got the chief justice's majority opinion. And that's the Buchanans, which was a very classically conservative separation of powers. Hold them from him. So I don't think we should read anything broader into his vote in these cases, other than the reality that he is now the Longboat And, you know, do not could show up again as early as you know the cases where they were coming down on Tuesday or the rest of this week or next week. You know, I don't think this is the last time this term that the chief going to be the swing vote, But I also don't think that you know the fact that he's this one wrote in some cases allows us to predict in which cases It most likely
"justice alito" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Well, remember, this is a man who in one of the public and debates for reasons, I don't remember called upon to defend the conservatism of his sister. A federal judge doing Richie said my sister has signed some of the same bills that Justice Alito assigned now this man who thinks judges signed bills, this amend, their for who would flunk sixth grade civics exam. Now he has control executive branch of government. It's you laugh that you may not weep he's also said that if he is impeded, he will sue. It shows a great deal of Cassidy to I've just wondering, though, since I brought up Peterman, you had an article in, I should say, George will syndicated about three hundred newspapers. You had an article about impeachment, and you said, maybe as an aesthetic consideration. But all that incessant lying all that contemptible coarseness that has been certainly described by you, and others where the president is concerned, doesn't necessarily impeachment and shouldn't necessarily to peach. Well, two purposes of impeachment. One is to punish actions are undertaken, and that was the Nixon's impeachment retrospective impeachment, and I don't know how you impeach Donald Trump. For safe firing James Komi. You have to a that was an exercise of a core. Presidential power to staff, the executive branch, they can say, well, he did it with a corrupt motive which might be true, but the corrupt motive was to prevent the investigation into an offense that the investigation actually preceded. Id to find didn't occur. So that's a pretty thin read on which to overturn a presidential election. A prospect of use of impeachment of prophylactic measure, if you will, which is to prevent additional damage to this public good..
U.S. justices watch their language as they consider profane trademarks
"Chain at the supreme court today. The issue was bad language, specifically can the government refused to grant trademark protection for brand names that include profanity the immediate problem for the court was how to discuss the issue without using the actual words how to discuss the F word, for instance, without actually saying the F word, which is a challenge that NPR Legal Affairs correspondent Nina totenberg faces in this report at the center of the case is a casual clothing line marketed under the name FU CT view can pronounce it yourself the line designed by Erik Brunetti is mainly hoodies loose pants shorts and tee shirt all with those letters prominently displayed Brunetti opened his line in nineteen ninety aimed at twenty somethings. He's been trying since then to get his brand. Trademark so that he can go after copycats go to EBay and you'll see lots of counterfeits to Amazon you'll see a lot lots of counterfeits in short. He says the knockoffs are costing him money. If I win I will pursue the counterfeiters to stop them for making my product the US government patent and trademark office. However has consistently turned him down contending that those letters violate the federal statute the bars trademark protection for immoral shocking. Offensive and scandalous word Brunetti case got a boost two years ago when the supreme court ruled that an Asian American band calling itself the slant could not be denied trademark protection. Because it used a disparaging term dealing with the brand name F C CT proved a bit more daunting in the supreme court chamber today deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart referred to it as quote, a profane past participle form of a well-known word of profanity and perha-. The Pera dig Matic word of profanity in our language the government. He maintained can deny trademark protection for that word. The justices pointed to a chart showing which terms if it granted trademarks by the government, and which head not most are not suitable for a general audience suffice to say that while few CT did not win trademark approval. FC UK did. And so did the well known Brin foo bar the word crap was registered trademark name seventy times. But the S word was consistently denied so Justice Ginsburg asked how does the trademark office define what is scandalous shocking or offensive do twenty year olds generally find f you see t to be shocking or scandalous, probably not see the government Stewart. But he said the term would still be shocking or offensive to a substantial segment of the population. Justice scores such pointed to the chart declaring that it was hard. To see why certain trademarks with dirty words were approved and others were denied Justice Alito asked what would happen? When really dirty words were at issue and how about racial slurs. S Justice prior those are more like swearwords their insults that sting remembered by those who are targeted Stewart replied that. Because of course decision in the slants case most racial slurs are now approved, but as for the most offensive slur the N word for now, it's still out representing F U C T designer Brunetti lawyer John summer didn't have an easy time. Either Justice briar, why isn't the government have the right to say you can use this language in your brand name. But the government doesn't want to be associated with it. By granting trademark protection. What I'm worried about? He said is that if a racial slur is trademarked, it will appear as a product name on every bus where it's advertised it'll be on newsstands where children and others will see it. That's not the audience. Mr. Brunetti is appealing to replied lawyer summer chief Justice Roberts. But that may not be the only audience he reaches lawyer summer return to the language of the statute arguing that if offensiveness is the standard for turning down a trademark steak and shake can't be registered either. Because quote, a substantial portion of Americans believe that eating beef is immoral decision. And the case is expected by
"justice alito" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"Many men grow the beard as a way to emulate the prophet Mohammed and saying he was willing to comma date and say that he would basically limit the beer to one inch and believe it or not the prison. Fused accommodate in saying that this one inch beard was going to allow him to bring in contraband notwithstanding. The fact that most other persons in the US allow people to allow prisoners to grow beards for both secular and religious reasons, and that their obvious ways to be able to check a very short beard. See if there's anything hidden in it. Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the nine majority. The court held that the prison had violated Lupu the court relied specifically and hobby lobby when it held that whole team at the standard for combination that that is an accommodation must be based on sincerely held religious belief. So that's a really concrete example of how hobby lobby came into play in a Muslim context. And then the land use contacts, we've seen quite a few cases of hostility against Muslim communities trying to build houses of worship a particularly notorious example is one in Murfreesboro, Tennessee in two thousand twelve where it was actually argued in court that the Muslims should not be able to build a house of worship because Islam is not a religion and therefore does not get protections under Lupu or the first amendment. And it was a pretty bizarre argument. Unfortunately, went on a little bit longer than it should have been allowed to. But in the end the Islamic centre prevailed from the Heritage Foundation yesterday if forum on the religious freedom restoration act this speakers Osma udon of Ultimas Lamar. More recent case in two thousand seventeen was in basking ridge, New Jersey after five years thirty nine public hearings and to lawsuits sonic society of basking ridge was finally able to build a new mosque burnout bernards township had refused to let the society begin construction based on the legend issues with minor details of its proposal, including the size of the parking lot. These concerns about parking, etc. Were largely a cover for anti-muslim discrimination. As yet lanting? Explain this case, it was a particularly nasty and controversial example, the local board discriminating against a religious group that wanted a place to worship while the bernards township cases distinctive it is no way unique religious discrimination. The US often happens in the most quotidian settings including debates over zoning ordinances. So using the basking ridge. Mosque reached a settlement that three point two five million in damages and attorney's fees in two thousand fourteen a mosque and Bridgewater New Jersey settled for almost eight million and two thousand eighteen the mosque beyond New Jersey settled for four hundred thousand so definitely under a loophole. Muslims have have one big. Thank you. Greg. Thanks, Emily for inviting me to participate in this panel. And join the remarks of my co-panelists some you asked us to look back twenty five years. It's a long time. And in a sense. My religious liberty practice grew with Riffa. It was in nineteen Ninety-three when I first heard of the existence of religious liberty litigation had religious liberty advocates and soon thereafter joined up with Christian legal society and its center for law and religious freedom. And I look back on those days, and I can confirm as you said. And as MRs James said, and as attorney general Whitaker said things have changed dramatically. I was very surprised when I first started. There were these meetings that consisted of all of the kinds of groups all across the religious and ideological spectrum that were mentioned before people for the American way ACLU national association of evangelicals. So then Baptist convention all pulling together on their ORs pushing the boat in the same direction. What I unfortunately witnessed soon thereafter was an was a Grey Cup of this coalition right after Riffa was adopted. This coalition hung together to defend the constitutionality of the religious freedom restoration act, it hung together to urge the courts to adopt robust interpretations of Riffa in the courts. One of the first cases was a very unique an odd situation involving a donor who to a church who went bankrupt and bankruptcy trustee. Ironically, named Christians was trying to claw back that donation from the church and the church asserted a river defense in the bankruptcy case. Unfortunately, the Clinton administration which had lobbied so vociferously and effectively for the religious freedom restoration act initially adopted and understanding of refer the really gutted the statute and drained it of its effectiveness and the river coalition. All these diverse groups responded by saying, no and persuaded that administration to change his mind about that case. Mentioned a Bernie case which eliminated refers Affleck ability to states and local governments which I think is we all know can sometimes be the most threatening governments with respect to the freedom of religious exercise. And that's when the coalition really starting to break up because in the wake of that decision. There was an effort to bring these groups back together and say, we can fix the problem that the supreme court identified we can identify sufficient sources of constitutional authority, whether it be the commerce clause are section five of the fourteenth amendment to do a riff from take to write that applies to states and local governments and in that short period of time between the adoption of reference one thousand nine hundred eighty three and the Herschel striking down in one thousand nine hundred seven and Florez it really truly was and I hate to be partisan about this the left end of the spectrum the head decide. At that point that robust protections of religious liberty posed a threat to the advancement of gay rights, essentially subordinated, their belief in religious liberty to their stronger belief in the advancement of gay rights. And that's why we only have relondo which is great. And I'm glad we have it. And I'm glad that you mentioned some of the many instances in which Muslims have found it necessary to use our Lupu to vindicate their rights. Then of course, is true of the Christian community as well. One of the I refer cases was asserted right here in Washington DC by western Presbyterian church in the West End DC foggy bottom area. They were just trying to feed the homeless and the district of Columbia government said that you can't do this violation of land use regulations or whatever. And western press was one of the first to assert a Riffa defense to the charge that the district had asserted against them and those kinds of land use cases, go on even till today involving Christian congregations just. Last late last year ADS, my organization settled a case against the city of laurel Maryland, which was allowing all kinds of groups to get together and you space meeting space in the downtown center, but not churches, Gregory Baylor. Alliance defense alliance defending freedom center for religious schools director. So you don't generate tax revenue. So that's one of the reasons why it was necessary for our client to assert a loop acclaim in that instance. But I guess it would be it'd be remiss not to identifies the biggest cases involving Christians in the religious freedom restoration act. None, of course, is the contraceptive mandate cases. As you know on. I believe all of the challengers to the mandate were Christians of some stripe. Whether they were Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant. And this was a fight that was in my judgment was unnecessary. There were models in the states of contraceptive mandates that have grat exemptions for religious plan sponsors with the previous administration some say deliberately picked a fight by crafting an extraordinarily narrow religious exemption. This is she's been radio programming from Thursday, and it required all of these entities, including that many of my clients to make a choice right between violating their conscience. And providing drugs that they think destroy life or to comply. Or to or to disobey the law as it were and face unsustainable. Find six seven figures every year. One of the unremarked upon aspects of those cases was the practical value that these cases serve to the to the entities that asserted them. There are some that say that this was all just symbolic. This was just about being opposed to the president or something like that the reality is that most of my clients instead of facilitating access to abortifacents would have dropped their healthcare plans. They would have let their employees wouldn't have no option to get health care through their employers, and instead would have had to go onto the exchanges, which has many. No, we're not the best option. Same thing with respect to student plans. Lot of my clients with colleges and they sponsor student plans. They weren't required by law to do that. And we saw Steubenville university of Franciscan university of studio they dropped their student health plan rather than comply with us law. Now, fortunately, many of our clients were able to secure judgments under Riffa, and we're able to continue offering their health plans. But again, I think -ticipant for next point of discussion. I think the seeds of the challenges that we see being asserted against refer now are back in really the late s mid nineties between the adoption of references four years later when it was partially struck down. Thanks, Greg, Greg. Greg law firm alliance defending freedom represented of would and also many of the organizations involved in the nonprofits litigation and with the little sisters of the poor. And also worked on the hobby lobby case when she was at Beckett. So I'm gonna turn to looking ahead now to the next twenty five years as has already been discussed the coalition that formed in one thousand nine hundred three at has broken apart somewhat. And some of the groups that were originally involved in in passing now have adopted the belief that we actually don't want to support the freedom of religion of those people who disagree with us on particularly uncertain controversial issues that have been afraid to like contraception and also sexual orientation gender identity. And now we saw in the one hundred fifteenth congress that democratic members of congress introduced the do no harm act which would significantly limit for Fresno application when it comes to issues like contraception and sexual orientation gender, identity scissor to transgender society right now one is that the government's claims. Upon citizens have grown the contraceptive mandate is one example and the other trend is that our society continues to become more religiously diverse. So if these two trends continue in the next twenty five years have do you think? The challenges to refer could affect religious freedom, and please feel free to conclude your comments with any recommendations, you have either for policymakers or for the rest of us to keep alive the spirit of so I'm confident that referee. I will survive the crime challenges at phases because Americans prefer compromise over coercion since hobby lobby since the case. Hobby lobby was decided critics have increasingly argued the rivers being used in novel ways that impose third party horns. In other words, they've been claiming that religious people are using refer to harm others. But Rivera only been used in new ways because of unprecedented government intrusions prior to the Obama administration. No, one could have ever imagined that the federal government would attempt to force non provide their employees with abortion inducing drugs for the same groups that favored the abortions using mandate to come forward and say that refer has been used in novel ways reminds me of the. The old joke definition of doors for a person to murder his parents. And then Trump south on the mercy of the court has an orphan. Riffa is about allowing Americans of all faiths, no faith to compromise. And reach win win solutions for religious pharmacist has religious objections providing abortion inducing drugs. He can make arrangements with the pharmacist down the street and send all customers requesting such drugs to that store. That's a win win solution..
"justice alito" Discussed on The Nicole Sandler Show
"Can you comment on your personal opinion on whether Oberg feld was correctly, decided it's ES or no? Please. In masterpiece cake. Shop in this is I think, relevant relevance. Your question. Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion joined by chief Justice Roberts and Justice, Alito and Justice. Gorsuch Justice, Breyer, and Justice Kagan the days of discriminating against gay and lesbian Americans or treating gay and lesbian Americans as inferior in dignity and worth are over of air paranoid. You agree with that statement that is the press and the supreme court agreed with by Sarah. I'm asking European nominee right now, and so it is probative of your ability to serve on the highest court in our land. So I'm asking a very specific question either you're willing to answer or not, and if you're not willing to answer it, we can move on, but do you believe Obama felt was correctly decide? Yes. Each of the justices have declined as a matter of judicial and ship them to answer questions. That line of cases say, you will not answer that question. You know, he following the precedent set by those eight Justice, they've all declined. Thank you. When asked to answer that question have limited time, but it soon. That that really like to move on. She, she's, she's so good. Her questioning was. Stupendous in one very telling moment, cavenaugh incorrectly referred to birth control as an abortion inducing drug. He did, oh, I have the under the religious freedom restoration act of the question was I was this substantial burden on their religious exercise, and it seemed to me quite clearly. It was it was a technical matter of filling out a form. In that case, they said, filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion inducing drugs that they were as a religious matter objected to. Yeah. Sorry, the birth control pill does not cause abortions just doesn't do that. The hearings continue with witnesses testifying both for and against Cavanagh and Cavanagh himself is back before the committee in a closed session today. Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani said yesterday that the president will not answer special counsel, Robert Mueller's questions in writing or in person about whether he'd tried to block the probe into Russian interference in the two thousand sixteen election saying questions about obstruction of Justice, worry quote, no go, but that's sink in for a moment after all these months of back and forth. Now he's not going to answer all the more reason. This Cavanaugh thing is so important because this will likely go to the supreme court as to whether or not Trump has to answer to a subpoena. Never dull moment. Trump had a rally yesterday in Montana. He told supporters there that he if he ever gets impeached, it'll be their fault for not voting in the midterms. He also tried to address the anonymous New York Times op-ed by White House staffer who called him unfit. I, but he couldn't say the word anonymous and he tried twice the latest active resistance is the op-ed published in the failing New York Times by an anomaly really isn't an ominous allied gutless know how anonymous you just look anonymous, not gutless anonymous. Yeah, but despite that Trump claims, his speeches are some of the best in all of history. Seriously. You know what? ABRAHAM LINCOLN made the Gettysburg address speech, the great speech. Do you know he was ridiculed? He was ridiculed. He took the horse and carriage up from the White House. He wrote it partially in that carriage and partially at a desk in the Lincoln bedroom, which is incredible. By the way in the white him, he Gettysburg. And he delivered that speech, the Gettysburg address, and he was excoriated. By the fact is had victor's. They had thank God. They said it was a terrible, terrible speech. They said it was far too short. It's not law. Many of us know it by memory. It was far tonight you and it was far too flowery. It was too flowery four score and seven years ago, right to flowery and he died fifty years after his death. They said it may have been the greatest speech ever made in America..
"justice alito" Discussed on First Mondays
"This idea that you had first amendment rights against your local government or even against this sort of national government as a government employee is a thoroughly. Modern invention is like stupid. And so his responses, well, but surely you, the labor unions representing all these public employees. Don't believe that they don't have any free speech rights at work. So get out of here and you know, that is that is a reply, but it is, and it's not a reply that says, originalism is stupid, but it's also not a reply that like enters the argument on its own terms. Right? And because I think the the reason I think that, for example, that the employment side folks were always worried about Justice. Scalia's vote in these in in Friedrich's and in, you know, he died, but any sort of other cases to is that's not a reply can sort of him making right because he would have been perfectly contented to say. Yeah. I think that a lot of these cases about the public employees rights of free speech against their local police department perfectly happy to leave those by the wayside to. And so you know, let's do that and the fact that the, you know, the defendants wouldn't have endorsed going down that road is really neither here nor there. So what I mean, your job is the Justice is to figure out the right answer to the legal question, right? Not sort of call. Gotcha on arguments. This is what makes me think that that obviously, there are differences between Justice Alito and people like the Scalia, but I'm not sure the differences about whether it be an originalist or not so much a difference about how much you believe in pyrrhic victories how much you believe in sort of hoisting people holding people to argue with in other places. Justice league has said in the free speech doctrine that he might go along with a much broader interpretation of free speech. If it seemed like everybody on the court really believed in that. But as long as there are people on the court who. Don't believe in protecting core political speech. I the centers and citizens United. Then what's the point in? What's the point in free speech doctrine. Those are some other difference about about judicial behavioral orientation that I think the the label at all, but just to tout it, I should say there is also a recent article necessar- end by Todd Shaw and Steven Calabresi called the jurisprudence of Justice Samuel Alito. That argues at length that just as Leo is in fact that originalist once you sort of go into it, which is at least worth a read for people who who were skeptical about this, like I was, I suppose, by the, you know, the transit of principle since I believe Calabrese wrote the originals case, forcing sex marriage, and he argues the Justice league. In fact, in originalist that we can now be sure that Justice Alito as you know, we would have voted for originals opinion in burger fell. So that's good news for everybody. Okay. So before we go any further in that conversation, wanna take a break to thank our first sponsor, which is blinking st- and this is a new sponsor. We're very excited about. So if you guys are anything like us, the list of books that you want to read or that people tell you parties or the park, or whatever suggest you read is basically never ending and always expanding, and because you have a real job, you don't have time to read them all, but our sponsor blinking has solved. And I think pretty impressive way your long list of must-reads once and for all yet. So blinking is basically the only app that takes thousands of best-selling nonfiction books. And then it just boils down to the key points that you actually need to know. So you can read or listen to them in under fifteen minutes on your phone. Yeah. And using Lincoln. You can expand your knowledge, learn more in fifteen minutes than you can almost any other way and you can listen anywhere can listen in the car..
"justice alito" Discussed on First Mondays
"That could, for example. Caused by 'Lance two people or or influence minors if I could jump in here too, because you know, I think about this question sometimes and you know, Ian, I think you are right that in this world, what I prefer, say a Justice Scalia to Justice Alito. Yes, because what would that give me Crawford and friendy and all of the other decisions would largely be the same. So yes, I would prefer that world, but I do think that there is something dangerous about overstating the extent of the differences between the justices. And what I think the danger is is kind of twofold is one when you are suggesting supporting the idea that the methodology that the Justice who has the method of interpretation that Justice Scalia champion, that judge or Justice is the one who is actually constrained Amir meaningfully constrained in all of the. Cases that we have been discussing where the methodology either runs out or were they reach a result counter to the methodology, but say nothing about it or were there us one of the options. So particularly wear that judger Justice, suggesting their methods constraining their Methodist principled in everyone else's just engaged in game partisan politics. You are feeding into this narrative that will, I think, operate to some sort of disadvantage or de-legitimize ation of other methodologies that are capable concerning judges or justices and better reflect the judges or justices of the party that you agree with. And so I completely agree with you that, yes, I would prefer Justice Scalia to Justice, Alito. I also agree with Rick that the extent of the differences between them are maybe not as great as some of the questions suggests and also may be more based on what the underlying methodology is. So for example, the chief Justice of the United States. I don't really think of him as such. Some sort of firm originalist, but nonetheless, he votes with criminal procedure defendants in constitutional cases, statutory ones. So some of the differences aren't just about methodology there about underlying substantive commitments in their approach to what they think the underlying principles are that the constitution contains. And I do think that there is something dangerous about suggesting one side's judger justices. They are engaging in personal methodology. They're always constrained. And yeah, let's vote in those people like let support those people because they are going to be, you know, somehow meaningfully better more constrained. And that is compared to the judges justices that you know, like just Kagan Justice briar whoever else. I agree with that and you know what I point to a good counter to originalism textual. The only way to go. That's principled. I'd point to judge Robert chasms book on statutory interpretation, which was really an answer to Justice Scalia. And what's what's really interesting is been this debate about whether judge Kavanagh who's been nominated to the supreme court isn't originalists and it's not clear that he is, but he certainly is a textualist and he wrote a response to casper book in the Harvard law review where he really says that will textual ISM is calling balls and strikes. And you know, defining the strike zone like really gets into this baseball metaphor loves baseball. Yes, apparently. So. Yes. But, but I think Katzman has the better of the argument that a kind of wooden texture Eliza that is practiced by, I would say someone like Justice score, which is much less likely to reach a result that actually reflects a fair reading of the statute. Then one that would take into account some legislative history and purpose..
"justice alito" Discussed on First Mondays
"Bench until death not that he had to but that if he could have how much different the was like going i mean who knows what happens in bush v or if we had five democrat appointed justice maybe they were doesn't happen who knows but beyond that we definitely or if we did have a different outcome and bush or we would not have justices teach us as roberson justice alito but presumably pretty convincing liberal majority in the court anyway don't they discussed on interesting so get your input if you thanks for me this lights what a crazy system we have where you know who gets on the court is subject to these crazy contingencies about like when people die when you'll choose to retire with tj about the decision retire yeah there's got to be a better way to do that and then it gets very troubling when you have the bush war situation which is the supreme court effectively weighing in on who's gonna win the presidential election and then that shapes who who's on the court i mean that's i don't know yeah not good it isn't good i actually did not know that marshall had lived until just the last first few days of the clinton administration that's that actually is quite fascinating think about i assume he retired because he just didn't think he could do the job anymore he'd gotten pretty old by that point but yeah of course i mean if he's there there's no justice thomas and then you know she comes out the other way i mean in other way to put it is you know if kathleen harris doesn't approve of this wild butterfly ballot from palm beach in two thousand election john roberts's like miguel estrada a very rich and accomplished law firm partner the name of which almost nobody outside of the law knows and it's interesting to think about who are the an because now it seems like the chief was always destined to be the chief right it just seems like his whole life was building to this even clerked for the old chief but of course he was six hundred votes in the other direction from that not happening so then start to wonder like who's the democratic chief right who's the person whose life was building up to this so obviously and everything was going right and gore was clearly going to be bush and then this person is gonna be the chief justice and who is that although ringquist in o'connor don't leave until the second bush term that's true so so it's actually quite possible it's imagine gore wins then you've got twelve years in a row of democratic control the presidency actually fairly likely that there would be a party change at that point kind of unusual to have four straight victories not impossible but it it was possible right it would be unusual although would all be mccain runs in two thousand four maybe he does maybe he does although it is very hard to please scenarios out but my response to the people who have always said because a lot of people do say that which is well don't forget they waited until an intervening national election to retire and in rehnquist's case he was able to stay alive for that long but you know there's such substantial advantages to incumbency for one thing for another i'm pretty sure that roberts was placed on the bench in the dc circuit in the first term to kind of get credentialed up till that feel that chief sponsor so you know maybe justice it could've been could've been a different republican thing of course yeah it could have been your old boss right judge wilkinson who would think logical choice if there had been no john roberts sitting around for that chief spot so yeah i think that it does it all straight so that these contingencies are not the stuff that national decisions should be made out of like it's one thing to lose a close election but it's quite another to like have a person being random ill health and then all of a sudden abortion lee resumes like i mean what sense does it make this is i have hypothetical regarding masterpiece they shop but i haven't heard before i call it shorting cake and i have this is that when the couple of ridgely requested their cake let suppose only one of them went to bake shop and jackson didn't know the request for a gay wedding he didn't make the cake and when a couple of goes to pick it up he says wait a second i didn't realize this was.
"justice alito" Discussed on Pantsuit Politics
"The two of them i have no idea what he'll do on the court because every opinion he's written in his life has been like well here's what the president is in we're a lower court and we're bound to apply it and he wrote a book with neil gorsuch about what president means but it's difficult to tell which one of them is offering which parts from what i have read so far i just don't know i was really upset by the opinion the recent opinion that justice alito wrote overturning precedent on public unions said on the nightly nuance i agree with everywhere to the opinion up to the decision to overrule forty years of president on this issue i just don't think that makes any sense and i can't imagine that cavenaugh and roberts and alito are gonna want to have this legacy of just constantly doing that so i i may be not as freaked out by the possibilities here is some observers are but i could be totally wrong but gorsuch joined that opinion yeah he did he did after writing a book on president did i think that to me like i don't believe them i'm just going to be honest i don't believe they're smart enough they get in there and they make the law work for what they think the right decision you don't you don't read either side and go away being like oh they're just big babies and they just want they wanna make the law no they all they can all make pretty good cases but they make it work no matter even the original construction and all it's all windowdressing for an ideology and how they want to use the decisions of the court to support it we are a hundred percent away from a judicial conservatism it is now judicial activism from the right and then we should be honest about that and and that's what i find heartbreaking about the whole thing but but we we don't have i don't i don't think a lot of judicial conservatism happening and in one respect you could argue that that's what brett kavanagh's lower court career has represented because he has been pretty faithful to supreme court precedent and and carefully so but always noting it along the way so i just don't know i don't know what he'll do we want wanted to touch quickly on the president trump's nato visit i would really just this is related go with me here if you are a major media outlet and you are using the word twitter rant just stop please please please stop reporting on that i am begging you i understand that the president's twitter feed he is the president of the united states it's important i understand that but maybe sending giving the twitter rants the entire story you could write a story on the reality on the ground and saved to the very end of the article this is with the president's reaction on twitter because we don't do that for presidential press releases when they put out statements they don't cover those almost all on their own or like they certainly didn't the abominate ministration the bush administration they were treated way down in the stories this was the white house a statement on this so why can't we just treat the tweets like that just treat them like white house statements stick them at the end like i'm so frustrated with the continuing way the press covers his tweets as if we all have learned anything from it like if anybody is really concerned they don't first of all they don't need the press covering they can go on twitter read 'em themselves and like i just i'm really frustrated because i feel like what was happening at nato and the coverage of his tweets about nato rivera different and i'm frustrated by that i don't know what the right way to cover that is because diplomacy is so personal so i can understand on the one hand that the tweets are the most insight we have into the president as a person and the tweets have been quite relevant to some of what's heard you know someone writing about the g seven summit would have given a very incomplete picture of that summit had they not included his twitter commentary on it commentary seems like a generous word but i'm not saying don't include it i'm saying don't make it the story yeah the takeaway that i've come away with from all the coverage is that we're just america's wearing everybody out like the drama of all of just exhausting.
"justice alito" Discussed on The 11th Hour with Brian Williams
"Supreme court as we mentioned you are a recovering sherpa having been in the role what did you make of the selection of judge cavanaugh and the rollout so far well i played a lead role brian as you mentioned in the confirmations of chief justice roberts and justice alito supported justice k gain and sort of my your i believed that presidents have the prerogative and should be able to nominate and get past qualified justices brett kavanagh's justice that would have been our judge that would have been nominated by president rubio or christie or jeb bush the issue here is the illegitimacy of the seat caused by mitch mcconnell's unprecedented tampering with this process it so not only has mcconnell broke in the institution of the senate it's comedy but he's delegitimize to some degree the third branch of government to supreme court it's a democrats will never look at this seat as legitimate and that further the phrase our already toxic political culture last week and i i wanna say this that we're not talking enough about the deal here when the white house deputy press secretary today dodges around the question whether trump and kennedy had a meeting where cavenaugh was discussed as the replacement should kennedy retire it may be kennedy suggesting all retire if it's cavanaugh when kennedy son is trump's banker at deutsche bank there are aspects of this that stink and we haven't talked enough about that when we talk about supreme court justices we expect the highest levels of integrity the issues that you will recuse from or always an important part of any confirmation process and certainly i think democrats would be wise to focus on this issue in the confirmation to make brick cavanaugh promise to pledge that he will recuse use himself from any decision involving questions about whether the president is above the law whether the president should be compelled to testify in an ongoing criminal investigation that lurches closer it closer to the oval office every day joining us from what has become these straight talk studio steve schmidt steve thank you my friend for coming on and come on anytime we appreciate your time tonight coming up for us one of our next guest calls trump's behavior in brussels diabolical supporters say he's accomplishing what more polite presidents could not but we'll look at what his base and history we'll both make of the president's challenges to our own best allies when we continue.
"justice alito" Discussed on First Mondays
"That it's content based speech restriction but it seems like the state of california is like officially taking the position that legalized abortion is a good thing and we're going to try to discourage people who say otherwise from getting their message out and i'm like do you understand that that is the meta effect of these legal doctrines working together but just in the opposite direction and i neither of those things are good right like i had i had serious reservations about this law i continue to have serious reservations about this law but for the same reasons that i have reservations about the stuff that you might have to do or say in like texas or wherever so i don't know if you have a lot to say about either justice kennedy's concurrence justice briars descent i don't really have a lot to say about the descent i thought it was sensible kind of straightforward but yeah any other thoughts on this case from you not really you know you know other than than saying that you back when it was argued i think we thought maybe there would be some way to sort of come to a broader consensus it wasn't it didn't it didn't obviously even though it involved abortion obviously look like setting for four but did yeah so on where do we go there any of the cases we should talk about this week you know i don't know if you want to say anything about abbott this is a you know racial gerrymandering case opinion by justice alito upholding the the state's districting here saying you know we're not gonna find a problem with it even though there some historical evidence that these districts hers drawn aparicio discriminatory reasons they were sort of redrawn later i don't have a lot to say about that you know i think that it's you know it's important important voting rights decision there's some some stuff in there that sort of precise some danger for future litigation under the voting rights act particularly justice thomas's concurrence yeah let's let's talk about that a little bit is actually think that is the most sort of important thing that he says he says basically his view is section to the voting rights act which is what's at issue here he says i don't actually think that that applies to redistricting so it can actually like it's not a way that you review maps in this way and so it would not provide a basis for invalidating adding district and it can't it would still be separately illegal for fourteen reasons to racial gerrymandering but he says the court correctly price applies precedents and i joined the opinion full justice gorsuch joints that so justice course which is on the record yeah and it's a very very short opinions just a paragraph but that have pretty significant effects you know you're obviously have the case shelby county which struck down section five of the voting rights act several years ago and so this is very important very very important statute coming out of civil rights hero that was very very hard one civil rights advocates and really changed this country and the conservatives assist seem determined to chip away at this is you know fund this sort of the heart defendu but you know not say more well and i think as you think about the shape of things to come with a kennedy replacement one thing we've mentioned is that it's not just changed the outcomes in cases it changes the mix and the voting rights act actually again not a project that like conservative luminaries have kept secret but the various statutes that sometimes require the government to take account of race in making say redistricting decisions or sometimes in hiring decisions for from defection purposes and things like that those statutes are in the use of many conservatives themselves inconsistent with the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause and so you cannot actually say for example in the view some that you have to draw your districts in a way that preserves majority minority districts or.
"justice alito" Discussed on First Mondays
"Do mean the following thing i don't mean it to be sarcastic or or snide at all i really actually mean this which is that i hope i live long enough to achieve a victory on the scale of what justice alito achieved in janice because that is the work of a lifetime for people who believe in the outcome in janice you should go to sleep very happily because that was a decades long effort to do something that is going to be tremendously significant that is i think an achievement that took longer just in terms of calendar years than you know winning same sex marriage nationwide because if you really count really there you have to start the count probably from like lawrence or at least bowers actually i think this even longer than bowers overflow released its close so although i ardently opposed what has happened in this case it is very important to understand the scale and the scope of this achievement and so i won't exactly offer congratulations but i will say that i hope i live long enough to achieve something as big as what you did so take that for what you will what do you wanna say about the descent very you know characteristically wellwritten written dissent by justice kagan you know deals a lot of the arguments you know at length and you know well i don't know gonna get into the specifics of other than just i think maybe talking about the very end is probably is probably while yeah we're we're our basic argument is conservatives are taking the first amendment and turning it into sore turning it into a weapon that they can use to basically you know basically bring back the lochner she's not saying that in exactly those words but that's basically argument basically you know use this to strike down all sorts of efforts to regulate the economy and affect economic just tribute of outcomes and so forth and she says you know basically this is really you know this is just the beginning because everything touches on speech in some way speech is every of every human activity so the majority of road runs long and it every stop are black road rulers overriding citizens choices first amendment was meant for better things he was meant not undermine but to protect democratic governments including over the role of public sector unions and think we're gonna see a lot more to sense like this in the future yes would it really reminded me of the sort of structure of it is she lays out you know what the majority wants to do is pick winners and losers because it has decided that wants to do this but until now there has been this energetic policy debate some state and local governments think that these kind of fair share agreements are good and that stable unions promote labor peace and improve the provision of services to the public other state and local governments think to the contrary that unions are impose excessive costs we've debated the pros and cons of this for many decades twenty two states where on one side twenty on the other in that healthy that democratic debate ends the majority has judge who should prevail indeed the majority is bursting with pride over what is accomplished now those twenty two states it crows can follow the model of the federal government and twenty other states i it was meant for better things it reminded me of the closing section of justice clears opinion his dissent in united states i windsor about the defensive marriage act which obviously is somewhat ironic in certain ways but like in other words.
"justice alito" Discussed on The Editors
"You have you know different coalitions on very different issues now if you're talking about ideological questions i think really what you're going to be looking at it it's not so much the chief being in the center but the chief perhaps having 'institutionalised impulses that might make him inclined to move more slowly in some areas that said look he he you know he wrote a great descent in in berga fell he was completely with the justice alito and in yesterday's union dues opinion janice i understand the disappointment that many have with the chief over really over the to a bomb care rulings but i think it's people miss the big picture when they talk about him along with say justice kennedy i think it's markedly better in so many ways so yeah look it's possible that that was him as the as the swing vote if so that's a very good situation half in one ear is the court is likely to end up in different places than it would have is kennedy were were still on the court well i think in the fifth anum takings area see an opportunity to really revisit things i think also in the whole religion area the while kennedy was not on the other side generally so to speak i think his replacement might be more robust defender of religious liberty boy i haven't talked about this comprehensively i'm sure there are a lot of other areas i mean certainly when you look at at issues like you know eroding the death penalty you know review of abortion regulations you know i would think that that there plenty of areas you're gonna see room for the court to to to move more in the right direction and circling back to row it's also kind of conventional wisdom that roberts would be very cautious about undoing row in one fell swoop do you have any of you on that or is it just just too hard to speculate well i emphasize that i don't claim to know his mind better than others do but i i do have a much higher hope that he will you know rule strongly when the occasion presents itself have in mind that under the regime of row and planned parenthood be casey states are left to legislating only marginal realm so it may well be that the first cases that come off will be you know cases involving who knows oltra sound requirements or you know definitions viability but it shouldn't be long before a state presents to the court a law that for example the heartbeat laws would be would fit the bill that really requires a court who decide was row correct or not should we retain it or not and at that point i don't know what can be you know what what could be done incrementally i think at that point you need to face up to it and make a decision and what do you think a post row of boertien regime would look like an america well what we would have would be you know discussion as largely been stifled for decades now and you know it's anyone's guess as to exactly have that plays out i think he would see federalist solutions with you know some states having much more protective regimes than than than others but i think the processes self would probably take you know a decade or two to begin to stabilize and again it's a shame that that that whole process has been stunted for forty five years now but i think the you know the processes because only adapt i think very readily to the task now obviously without revealing any inside information about this really extrordinary phenomenon where you had this new york billionaire who cares very little about social issues he has you know thought maybe about two minutes about the constitution if that seems to have kind of a constitutional view our government has been fiercely loyal to the social conservatives in his political base and clearly part of his legacy one way or the other is is going to be have having pumped out you know generations worth of highly credentialed and impressive constitutionalist judges at the appellate level and at least two and maybe more on the supreme court hot how did that happen well this is a powerful custody to the.
Supreme Court rules for Texas redistricting plans
"And businesses fell as investors sold some of the best performing shares salmon shed more than three percent net flicks tumbled six and a half percent michelle franzen abc news here are your political insights from abc news president trump flooded twitter monday pushing his quote tough stance on immigration while in the oval office the president criticized calls to hire thousands of immigration judges to handle a backlog of migrant cases where do you find five thousand people to be judges this comes as thousands of children who were separated from their parents at the us mexico border have yet to be reunited with their families democratic senator bill nelson of florida says he visited one of the facilities housing those undocumented kids after days of trying to get in nelson says he wasn't able to speak to the kids nor has been able to reach the staffer in charge of reuniting migrant families they are petrified that the rest of the president is going to come down on their head if they do anything that they think displeases the president nelson says if that's not it there either hiding something or have no real plan to reunite migrant families those are your political insights stephanie ramos abc news washington the us supreme court overturns a lower court ruling that found texas congressional district map was racially discriminatory abc news supreme court contributor kate shaw has more from washington lower courts agreed with this and struck down this legislative map and the supreme court today five four reversed those lower courts in opinion by justice alito essentially allowed those maps disdain effect the map combines two legislative districts into one heavily hispanic district pay t and t is accused of helping the national security agency collect data for spying purposes the set for the dallas based telecommunications giant allows the nsa to have eight peering hubs to look at internet traffic through a project called fairview of former at and t technician says the nsa can collect the data from at and t and other companies networks the hubs are reportedly in atlanta chicago dallas los angeles new york seattle san francisco and washington dc and at and t spokesperson says the company is required by law to give information to the government by complying with court orders and subpoenas that's tom roberts reporting komo aaa traffic every ten minutes on the four sitting a report of a collision on southbound highway one six seven at two seventy seven looks like it's mostly after the right shoulder though and it looks like we're clearing in the u district on the southbound make that the northbound i five off ramp to northeast fifty a disabled vehicle partially blocking that ramp is being removed from the scene and your next report is up.
"justice alito" Discussed on The Dan Bongino Show
"On that alito who's a genius he is a genius this questioning you have got to read this and is a video in there to watch it it's amazing what's the guy stumble justice alito tis his brilliant how 'bout a shirt with the text that the second amendment that's just their constitutional gel your honor i i i think that that could be viewed as political that uh that that that that would be political the secular by mid what is the tax through the second about it so the rainbow flag a okay brother park with strong praying go the second amendment the actual text no no no way no good nra shirt absolutely not okay one more this pagliughi gotta love lido by see it would've been a padam under back hopefully security as the stabbing of a good way he's great how about the first amendment no you're onarato take the first amendment and your honor i and chief justice roberts intervenes note no what that it would be covered or wouldn't be allowed no the first amendment would be allowed so the imf admits cooled gel because liberals agree with that tire but the second amendment definitely not that's political way way we bought more this is because this what's great goal but i am sorry to tour will go how about a colleague capper new jersey alito says no your honor i i don't think that would be other our statute and i think those words it's okay it's not a covered by the sea colin kaepernick jersey that's not political and even know capper nick is known primarily for making a political say now this is a genius right capper and extends were black lives matter and that whole group at his jersey's okay according to this liberal supposedly are here right.
"justice alito" Discussed on First Mondays
"That he said it's not a public forum so you don't have a right to just express yourself willy nilly it's a place where people we are counting we are casting in counting the votes the chief justice said at one point it does reach quite a bit beyond what i think a reasonable observer would think is necessary and justice ginsburg said how far does this go can you wear a pin saying me to or the aclu defends free speech and roeken said that the line estate has drawn is to bar material that a reasonable person would understand as a message aimed at influencing electoral choices in that election and that polling place in the on that day so if a battle of course his main antagonise good yet his main antagonists with justice alito and he justice lead us at the problem is that so many things have political connotations are and are in the eye of the beholder and they're an invitation shen to arbitrary enforcement and then he went through a litany of these which were yastrjembski difficult to answer a help out a short with a rainbow flag without be permitted i sure with the rainbow flag no it with you i guess it would be it would be permitted unless there was unless there was an issue on the palace that that related somehow to two gave rights i have a certain says park land strong no that would that would be that would be allowed i think i think you're out of even god guncontrol would very likely be an issue to the extent that some candidate would raise an issue about gun control your honored the the line that were drawing is one that is.