35 Burst results for "Justice Ginsburg"
Bloomberg Radio New York
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"The stern that may be interested parties might buy books in bulk as a way of curing favors with justices. That said, there were a couple other experts I was in contact with, Amanda frost, Stephen Gilles, who essentially said, look, I don't see this as a problem. They are allowed under the ethics laws to do this. If there's some issue involving, say, the publisher, they may have to reuse from a particular case, but there's not any sort of bar to adjust as doing this sort of thing. It's a small controversy, but at a time when this court is mired in controversy. Yeah, of course, we think about things like the leak of the draft abortion opinion. We think about things like justice Thomas's wife, Virginia, taking part in efforts to overturn the election results and in that refusing from cases and yes, a court is awash in ethical controversies right now and everything the court does right now reflects on it and has the potential to affect its standing among the public. You know, one other aspect of these books, particularly the memoirs, is that they probably contribute to this notion that justices are frequently becoming celebrities in their own right. When we saw that with justice Ginsburg, before she passed away, there's a bit of a cult of personality that surrounds some of the other justices on the court now. Certainly justice Thomas is very much a hero and conservative circles episode of mayor very much has developed their own brand. Justice Jackson may be moving in that direction. I don't want to speak prematurely, but certainly she is somebody who has captured the imagination of a lot of people in the public. And a book like this that tells her story may only further that trend. Yeah, it's a far cry from the days when many people didn't even know who was on the Supreme Court. Now they're celebs. But do these book deals highlight the controversy over the justices being the only federal judges, not bound by an ethical code of conduct. That is really a long running criticism of the court that has gotten more headway recently because of all these ethical controversies. This is a case where even if that code of conduct that applies to lower court judges, even if that applied to the Supreme Court, it probably wouldn't provide any clearer statement that says you can't do something like that. But this might be the kind of thing that some folks want to look at. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter Greg store. Coming up, Republican congressman George Santos, under fire from all directions. This is Bloomberg. I'm Stacey Marie Ishmael, managing editor of crypto for Bloomberg news, and your host for Bloomberg crypto, a daily Bloomberg I heart podcast. Join me weekdays for a deep dive into how digital financial assets affect our lives. The ecosystem that's being built around crypto, nothing short of amazing. We examine who the players are and what's at stake in this financial upheaval.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Their personal life or about their judicial philosophy, this gives them whatever 300 pages to tell their story without an eruption the way they want to tell it. Just by the numbers associate justices earn $274,200 a year. Are they limited to outside income of no more than $30,000 or is that just judges? The upside income cap applies to certain things like teaching. When it comes to book royalties, there is no cap, which is why we can get the figures that are so large. And why they are traveling to some legal experts just because it is sheer amount relative to what they earn in their day job does kind of create some obstacle issues. Greg, you spoke to a lot of legal ethics professors for your story, and they seem to be split as far as their concerns about these huge book deals for Supreme Court Justices. Charles gay of Indiana University said, from the perspective of the average American whose grinding out a living at 40 K a year, the optics of a judge whose paid $250,000 in tax dollars to do the people's business as a justice, earning several times her salary on a side deal may be problematic. So is the point basically it doesn't look right. As he said, legal ethics experts were split on this issue with professor gay. That is his concern that there is an issue of the optics of these large dollar amounts. He says he's an easy about it. He actually characterized this issue as relatively small compared to some other ethical issues affecting the court. Another expert I spoke with, Richard painter, who's a former White House ethics council, was more concerned about knowing where the money is coming from the churn that maybe interested parties might buy books in bulk is the way of curing favors with justices. That said, there were a couple other experts I was in contact with Amanda frost, Stephen Gilles, who essentially said, look, I don't see this as a problem. They are allowed under the ethics laws to do this. If there's some issue involving, say, the publisher, then you have to refuse from a particular case, but there's not any sort of bar to adjust as doing this sort of thing. It's a small controversy, but it's at a time when this court is mired in controversy. Yeah, of course, we think about things like the leak of the draft abortion opinion. We think about things like justice Thomas wife, Virginia, taking part in efforts to overturn the election results and in that refusing from cases and yes, court is awash in ethical controversies right now and everything the court does right now reflects on it and has the potential to affect its standing among the public. You know, one other aspect of these books, particularly the memoirs, is that they probably contribute to this notion that justices are frequently becoming celebrities in their own rights. And we saw that with justice Ginsburg before she passed away. There's a bit of a cult of personality that surrounds some of the other justices on the court now, certainly justice Thomas is very much a hero in conservative circles, and Sotomayor very much has developed her own brand. Justice Jackson may be moving in that direction. I don't want to speak prematurely, but certainly she is somebody who has captured the imagination of a lot of people in the public. And a book like this that tells her story may only further that trend. Yeah, it's a far cry from the days when many people didn't even know who was on the Supreme Court. Now they're celebs. But do these book deals highlight the controversy over the justices being the only federal judges, not bound by an ethical code of conduct. That is really a long running criticism of the court that has gotten more headway recently because of all these ethical controversies. This is a case where even if that code of conduct that applies to lower court judges, even if that applied to the Supreme Court, it probably wouldn't provide any clear statement that you can't do something like that. But this might be the kind of thing that some folks want to look at. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg new Supreme Court reporter Greg store. Coming up, Republican congressman George Santos, under fire from all directions. This is Bloomberg. I'm Stacey Maria Ishmael, managing editor of crypto for Bloomberg news and your host for Bloomberg crypto, a daily Bloomberg I heart podcast. Join me weekdays for a deep dive into how digital financial assets affect our lives. The ecosystem that's being built around crypto, nothing short of amazing. We examine who
Bloomberg Radio New York
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Their personal life or about their judicial philosophy, this gives them whatever 300 pages to tell their story without an eruption the way they want to tell it. Just by the numbers associate justices earn $274,200 a year. Are they limited to outside income of no more than $30,000 or is that just judges? The upside income cap applies to certain things like teaching. When it comes to book royalties, there is no cap, which is why we can get the figures that are so large and why they are troubling the sub legal experts just because it is sheer amount relative to what they earn in their day job does kind of create some optical issues. Greg, you spoke to a lot of legal ethics professors for your story, and they seem to be split as far as their concerns about these huge book deals for Supreme Court Justices. Charles gay of Indiana University said, from the perspective of the average American whose grinding out a living at 40 K a year, the optics of a judge whose paid $250,000 in tax dollars to do the people's business as a justice, earning several times her salary on a side deal may be problematic. So is the point basically, it doesn't look right. As he said, legal ethics experts were split on this issue with professor gay. That is his concern that there is an issue of the optics of these large dollar amounts. He says he's an easy about it. He actually characterized this issue as relatively small compared to some other ethical issues affecting the court. Another expert I spoke with, Richard painter, who's a former White House ethics council, was more concerned about knowing where the money is coming from the CERN that maybe interested parties might buy books in bulk is the way of curing favors with justices. That said, there were a couple other experts I was in contact with Amanda frost, Stephen Gilles, who essentially said, look, I don't see this as a problem. They are allowed under the ethics laws to do this. If there's some issue involving, say, the publisher, then they have to refuse from a particular case, but there's not any sort of bars or justice doing this sort of thing. It's a small controversy, but it's at a time when this court is mired in controversy. Yeah, of course, we think about things like the leak of the draft abortion opinion. We think about things like justice Thomas wife, Virginia, taking part in efforts to overturn the election results and him not refusing from cases and yes, according to the wash in ethical controversies right now and everything the court does right now reflects on it and has the potential to affect its standing among the public. You know, one other aspect of these books, particularly the memoirs, is that they probably contribute to this notion that justices are frequently becoming celebrities in their own right. We saw that with justice Ginsburg before she passed away. There's a bit of a cult of personality that surrounds some of the other justices on the court now, certainly justice Thomas is very much a hero in conservative circles. Very much has developed her own brand, justice Jackson may be moving in that direction. I don't want to speak prematurely, but certainly she is somebody who has captured the imagination of a lot of people in the public. And a book like this that tells her story may only further that trend. Yeah, it's a far cry from the days when many people didn't even know who was on the Supreme Court. Now they're celebs. But do these book deals highlight the controversy over the justices being the only federal judges, not bound by an ethical code of conduct. That is really a long running criticism of the court that has gotten more headway recently because of all these ethical controversies. This is a case where even if that code of conduct that applies to lower court judges, even if that applied to the Supreme Court, it probably wouldn't provide any clear statement that says you can't do something like that. But this might be the kind of thing that some folks want to look at. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg news Supreme Court reporter Greg store. Coming up, Republican congressman George Santos, under fire from all directions. This is Bloomberg. 93% of
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
"It is Nina totenberg. This book, the subtitle, a memoir on the powers of friendships, is it could have been the title because it's a lot more than justice Ginsburg. It is about friendship and what you do and do not do, and it's about struggling with long and sometimes terminal illnesses, both your own. I mean, I didn't know you'd been run over by a motorboat. Honestly, you know, that's news to me. There aren't a lot of people running around D.C. have been run over by a motorboat on their honeymoon, who lived to tell about it. I'm jumping ahead of my interview outline here. But you're damn lucky to be alive. I am damned lucky to be alive and I'm damned lucky I married a trauma surgeon. Yes. Because he helped, he supervised the surgery. He watched and he scrubbed in. It's so good. And then you brought the fisherman and his boys in. The boys on the tire who saw it. I'm not going to give that story away. People have to read it. I'm back to my outline. What I love about this book, how D.C. works. I'm abroad and my wife of 40 years has a medical incident. And she gets care because Elena nachman, Ruth Marcus, Jamie gangl, and Tom cottonseed to it. It's just one of my favorite stories. This is how D.C. works. You're abroad. You're gone, and your book makes manifest. It's all about your Friends in D.C., right? It is absolutely about your Friends. But Hugh, that's not special to D.C.. It's your family and friends who make a life. Yes. You don't have one or the other, and if you're lucky both, you don't have much of a life. But you know who your Friends are when you're in trouble and you need you need help right away and you're not there. You know who they are and boy you were to cokie a friend and the word timers and the Robert, I mean, your dinners are remarkable. Cokie Roberts died in 2019 after her breast cancer return and she fought heart. Marty Ginsberg died in 2010. It was another long goodbye that you lived through. Justice Ginsburg died on September 18th, 2020 and it's touching. It's almost teary inducing to read about how you and David took care of her. And by the way, your husband's medical ethics, our second to none in the compartmentalization that he adopted Vis-à-vis his treatment of the justice in your friendship with her. I just think it's an amazing book, Nina. And kind. No. I will say this about David. I have had friends, friends who tell me, finally, they'll say, you know, well, my husband has whatever sort of cancer. And I'll call updated and I'll say, David, did you know that so and so has cancer and do you need to call me the answer is almost always Nina, I've known for the last year..
The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated
Who Would Make a Great Supreme Court Advocate?
"Just because you've watched so many Supreme Court arguments, you know, so many of the justices, you know, so many of the legal people. If you had to recommend a Supreme Court advocate today, someone called you up and their company is on the line, they have to argue before the Supreme Court, who would it be? I guess it would probably be Paul Clement. You and I said the same thing. I got asked that question a couple of years ago. And I've never met Paul Clement or spoken to him, but I hit Paul Clement. Tell people why. Well, because he's just if he weren't such a nice and intelligent and good guy, I would say that he was an idiot savant of an advocate. I mean by that, I don't mean that he's an idiot. I mean that even when he was a baby advocate, he came to the Justice Department with John ashcroft for whom he had worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I think. And he was in his young 30s and Ted Olson was the solicitor general and had just won Bush versus gore for president Bush by then president Bush and ashcroft, I think, actually wanted Paul to be solicitor general and the compromise was that he would be deputy, which he was for four years, and then he became solicitor general on his own. But as Ted also would say, Paul is just an amazing advocate. And he is not a, you know, when he worked for the government, he represented the government. When he worked for the Catholic Church, he represents the Catholic Church. Do I think that is closer to an approximation of his views? Yes, I do. But he was a just a bang up advocate for the government. And so was Ted Olson. They both represented they both defended the McCain feingold law. And one in the Supreme Court, and it fell apart years later, and they represent different interests now that they're in private practice, but that didn't stop them from being the best advocates possible for their client at the time and their client at the time was the United States government. You just named two of the four of the greatest Supreme Court advocates of my generation, the other two being the now chief justice John Roberts, and the fourth being an it'll come to me. I just forgot his name. And there are four. And they were always, I get calls, and when the chief justice was in private practice at Hogan, I would say go get him. And now when I get calls, I say go get Paul Clement because Ken Starr judge Starr is no longer practicing. They work great Supreme Court advocates because they just are at ease and I bring that up because of your Walter dellinger story on page one 30 and God bless the late Walter dellinger, who is a great man in the law, with whom I disagreed often. But he mixed up the names of justices, O'Connor and Ginsburg in his first argument. That's over practicing. Nina, that's don't you think that's what it was. He was overprepared he had thought about it so much. I'm not going to mix them up. I'm not going to mix them up. I'm not going to mix them up, and he mixed them up, and they were not happy. I don't even know if it was that. First his first argument, it just was maybe the first time he faced the two of them on the court. You're right. You're right. And he said, I mean, I've done this. I've said North Carolina when my script says South Carolina, I don't know what happens. In a less than ladylike expression, it's a brain fart. Yeah. Happens to me like on a daily basis. Nina totenberg. I mean, on a daily basis, three hours of radio you're going to do it, your buddy Steve never makes a mistake inscape. And I really hate that. But I make mistakes every day. Let me go on now to what the essence of dinners with Ruth is. And I remind you of the Frank luntz role, we've got to say the title of dinners with rouge 7 times for people to remember dinners with Ruth and order dinners with Ruth. And I want to tell my Friends on the center right in the right, this book will charm you and inform you and you'll be better for having read it. I said that most recently about Evan Thomas's one, Evan is a friend, one is about justice O'Connor and as dinners with Ruth does for justice Ginsburg one did for justice O'Connor and together they do what is only very infrequently done they give you a glimpse of the real world of the Supreme Court. And you know what? So much better than I do. I know some of the justices, but not as friends. I mean, colleague, John Roberts, an old colleague, chief just a justice Thomas and Stephen Breyer sat for interviews. And justice Gorsuch had been spent time with, but I don't know them like you know them. And you are a great storyteller. And you humanize them, but especially judge justice Ginsburg. Did you intend that when you began?
The Charlie Kirk Show
Senator Marsha Blackburn Can Tell You Exactly What a Woman Is
"Marshall Blackburn center. Welcome back to the program. Good to be with you. Thank you so much. So senator, I just got to ask you the trick question of the decade. What is a woman? You know, a woman is an adult female human being, two chromosomes. There are so many ways we can answer that question. And Charlie, I have to tell you, I was probably dumbfounded as anybody with the fact that I could not get an answer from judge Jackson as to could she provide the definition of the word woman. And of course, my question came in a series of questions that I was asking her about work education, the school board she serves on a curriculum called kindergarten that teaches children as young as 5 to choose a gender. I went to the VMI case and justice Ginsburg had written in that case in the deciding position that there were enduring differences between male and female. This, of course, was the decision that let women into our military academies. And I was moving on to question her about the NCAA and biological males competing against biological females. So since I couldn't get an answer from her about what kindergarten or the VMI decision in justice Ginsburg's writing on that opinion, I just looked at her and said, well, can you provide me the definition of the word woman? Because these cases dealing with biological males competing in women's sports is going to end up with the Supreme Court. Because when you allow biological males into that competition, in essence, what you're doing is doing away with title 9, which means that girls have equal opportunity in sports. They can't be discriminated against.
Mark Levin
Sen. Marsha Blackburn Explains Her Question to KBJ to Define 'Woman'
"And why I think that we've had arabella and demand justice and groups that are backing her for the Supreme Court They've also backed and pushed some of these individuals for the federal district and appellate court And as they've said give us your money and will push for progressives on the court Activists judges And she knew full well if she gave me an answer if she agreed with justice Ginsburg which is what I'd ask her if she agreed with justice Ginsburg This error enduring differences between men and women And if she gave that answer then she would have offended those that are on that progressive far left that Marxist ideology And that was not what she wanted to do So she just said I can't But I think I won't Because she didn't want to move to the point of offending them And of course my question had come in a line of questioning that I was doing Starting with her work on a progressive private school board about their curriculum that teaches what kindergarten and children to choose their gender as young as 5 years old And then I went to the VMI decision that justice Ginsburg wrote in that case United States versus Virginia And that is the seminal women's rights case that allows women entire military institutions And she wouldn't say if she agreed with justice Ginsburg which honestly I thought she would probably do So then I just asked her can you give me the definition of the word woman
ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
"All right, folks, welcome back to the Todd stern's radio show. By the way, all you post listening to us on kwa flagship station and Memphis Tennessee. Our next guest is going to be one of the featured folks at the big Lincoln dinner sponsored by the Shelby county Republican Party, coming up very soon. Always fun when senator Marsha Blackburn comes back to town and she is on the patriot mobile newsmaker line senator good to have you with us today. It is good to be with you. Thank you so much. So senator, first of all, we just have to salute you for the incredible work you did. During the hearings for ketanji Brown Jackson, you asked. I know they're coming after you big time, but you ask some very important questions. Well, you know, I thought it was important on Monday, the first today opening day to lay out the questions I was going to ask about CRT about parents, right? To ask about what is happening with this biological male competing against biological female situation. To talk about court packing to talk about judicial philosophy to talk about Second Amendment rights and the right to like. All of which I told her we would discuss on Tuesday and Wednesday. So we did. So then the left gets really agitated when I ask about CRT and about the school board she sits on for the school teaches a curriculum look kindergarten. And teaches children as young as 5 to choose their gender. When she didn't want to answer that, she didn't want to give me an answer on the BMI case that deals with allowing women in military academies in justice Ginsburg wrote that decision for the majority on the Supreme Court and I asked her if she agreed with justice Ginsburg. That there are enduring differences between male and female. Didn't get an answer there. So I asked her, can you give me the definition of the word woman? And she was not thrilled to have that question. She said, I can't. And I pointed out and asked her if the topic was so controversial that she could not even give me the definition of the word. And I think everybody from The New York Times to The Washington Post to some of the late night shows have just about how to heyday with that. But you know what? I'm doing my job. You are. And senator, this is an important question because sooner or later, that question will be debated and will be argued at the Supreme Court whether by a biological female who has been denied a spot on an athletic team or a transgender person. So it's heading to the Supreme Court and that's why your question I believe was so vitally important. Well, I thought it was also. And that's why I asked it. Were you surprised by the vitriol? There was a school board member in Nashville, who actually got caught on a hot microphone saying, can we just set Marsha Blackburn on fire? Yeah. You know, as a conservative female and the most conservative member with the most conservative voting record of the U.S. and accustomed to having jabs thrown at me. It happened every single day. And I get death threats. My family said threats of physical harm and people just don't seem to mind when it happens to a conservative female. They get very upset. If they think someone challenges a woman who is on the left, so it's disappointing to hear that kind of rhetoric. And we are law enforcement investigating it. And so we'll wait and see what happens. So law enforcement, are they investigating the Nashville situation or others? Yes. Yes, they're investigating the comments that were made in Nashville. It's just appalling senator and you're right. And for some reason, the left and especially the mainstream media, they love to target conservative women. I think even more so than men, but the great news is you're not going to be intimidated. You're not going to be bullied and you speak the truth and they just can't handle the truth as they said back in the day. Well, that's exactly.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Stephen breyer the leader of the court's liberal justices will retire after more than 25 years on the bench Joining me is judiciary expert Carl Tobias a professor at the university of Richmond law school Tell us about the timing of justice breyer's announcement even before the end of the term when justice is normally retire Well it is unusual usually it comes at the last sitting or very close to the end of the term but it happened in all different periods So it's not unprecedented but it's nice in the sense that it provides plenty of time to replace him And so The White House and the Senate can move carefully to find the finest person to replace him There was a real push by liberals to get justice breyer to retire before the midterms might put Republicans in charge of the Senate Do you think all the political considerations played a part in justice breyer's decision If it were a different world he might have stayed on the bench That could be there was substantial pressure and some of it seemed too much The advertisements and that type of thing by people felt very strongly about this and they remember unfortunately what happened with justice Ginsburg And so there was pretty intense pressure How would you describe justice breyers jurisprudence over the years Well I think he was a real student of the branches of government He was an administrative law professor when he was at Harvard before he went on the first circuit and then on to the Supreme Court And I think he really cared about issues like separation of powers and the branches of government and how the branches work together or in opposition and I think he really relished working on those kinds of issues He also wrote some books that were very interesting in terms of things like deregulation and other areas that interested him So in a real roving intellect and a real command of the history of the federal government and how it worked Would you say that he always voted with the liberals I think it depended on the issue There were some cases where he did not always vote in a way that was as progressive as some people might have wanted And some of his colleagues might have won But I think he took each case as it came and on the law and the facts tried to do his best in terms of what he thought was the appropriate resolution of particular cases Would you say that he was a consensus builder on the court I think so He certainly had a reputation for being extremely collegial and I think if you were to see the way he treated lawyers arguing before him and his colleagues in questioning incredible temperament and was very patient and always tried to work toward what he thought would be the best resolution of any particular days So I think in that way he's a model jurist but he wasn't afraid to dissent when he disagreed with the majority of the court in ways that were respectful of the majorities up in even as he criticized it He also sometimes introduced some wacky hypotheticals during oral arguments Yes I guess the law professor in him couldn't resist but it is true that he often did ask difficult hypotheticals and sometimes that would frustrate lawyers I assume even the best who go before the Supreme Court One of the leading candidates mentioned as a possible nominee to replace justice breyer is judge katangi Brown Jackson She was confirmed just last year the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals and three Republican senators voted for her confirmation Might that make the confirmation process smoother Absolutely I also would expect those senators to withhold how they might vote until they see how she does in the process if she is the nominee I could see them saying and often senators do well I thought she was just fine for the D.C. circuit but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and because I voted one way doesn't necessarily mean that I will vote that way again But don't forget the Democrats have not lost any votes and none of them members have voted no on any of the lower federal court nominees today And so if they hold together there shouldn't be a problem They don't even need any Republican votes because of their tied 50 50 the vice president can break that tie And so we'll see how it plays out But I do think the Democrats are likely to hold together Just as Republicans have very much held together with some exceptions like senator Graham and sometimes senators Murkowski and Collins have voted for lower court nominees But many Republicans have voted no on almost everyone of Biden's lower court nominees even people who were not controversial Finally how would you describe justice breyer's legacy Well I think he brought an incredible understanding of how the federal government works in United States to the Supreme Court And applied his collegiality He's intelligent His independence to every case that came before the court in a way that informed the way many cases were resolved And I think he was always willing to dissent or to concur if need be And I think he leaves a really strong legacy in the public law area Thanks Carl Doctor professor called Tobias of the university of.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"The appellate and many district nominees so far from this president. Has President Biden nominated Any white male. A few, for example, down in the fourth circuit where I am Toby Heightens was the solicitor general is the solicitor general for Virginia and clerk for Justice Ginsburg and Eddie Becker on the third Circuit, and he is a white male and but they're very few others. That's exactly right. And Lucy Coe would be the first Korean American federal appellate judge. That's sort of hard to believe that she is the first you think she'll be attacked by Republicans for some of her Rulings. While she may be but She has handled some incredibly difficult and complex cases emanating from Silicon Valley. Uh and I think Donna fine job in those cases. And so I don't think there's any issue about what a fine judge she is. And so I'm certain that she will be confirmed. You mentioned that former President Trump put 10 nominees on the ninth Circuit is that circuit more Democratic appointees more Republican appointees at this point, and will these new Nominations change anything. They won't change the composition in terms of appointing president there, 16, appointed by Democratic president and 13 appointed by Republican presidents And the three who were assuming senior status where all appointed.
KTAR 92.3FM
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on KTAR 92.3FM
"Breyer and because he's in his eighties, as was Justice Ginsburg, um as being asked by liberals to step down and let him be let him be replaced by somebody of Biden's choosing, and the Democrats in the Senate could pass somebody and yet somebody they believe would be along his political leanings, as opposed to taking the risk like what happened with President Trump and Ginsburg. What was interesting about the Ginsburg thing was Ruth Bader Ginsburg was well into her eighties. She was not in great health during the Obama administration, and the word was the rumor was that the administration and others had talked to her about retiring while Barack Obama was president and allowing him to replace her. What Justice Ginsburg did was bank on the fact that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election and she was going to step aside. Once Hillary got elected, and then Hillary would replace her with another liberal justice. She was known as the liberal lioness. They used to have nicknames for people in the in the United States Senate years ago, before the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy. They called him the liberal lion. They called her. The liberal lion s. She was a very outspoken, especially at the end of her career liberal political justice, which is not what they're supposed to do. The chief justice had to tell her knockoff. Talking publicly about her disdain for President Trump and other things because they are supposed to at least give the appearance of being nonpartisan. It's supposed to be a nonpartisan office. One of the best conversations I had about the Supreme Court was with former Senator John Kyle, who was on the Judiciary Committee, and I think one of the most brilliant legal minds in America. And it's not just me that says that he is so well respected on both sides of the aisle. Former Senator Kyle I talked with him once about being appointed the Supreme Court because his name had been thrown around, and he gave one of the most honest answers that actually made me want him on the court more, he said. No, and he said no, because he had spent his entire life making policy. And he didn't believe it would be fair that he had to ask him to take off his policy hat on whether or not a piece of legislation was good or bad and put on just the judicial hat. That said, Is it constitutional? Not constitutional, and he didn't think that he could do it. And I thought for someone that already has that kind of self awareness. That's the kind of person you want on the court. It never happened, But we're supposed to have unbiased jurists that look at the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. An example I've used quite often is that Chief Justice Roberts has upset conservatives a lot after his appointment, but one of the things in a decision where he sided with liberal justices on Obamacare And I'm paraphrasing. What he said is it's not our job to deem a piece of legislation. Good or bad. It's either constitutional or unconstitutional. If you don't want bad legislation, stop electing bad legislators and I thought That was a great point. But what about term limits? Because now the Democrats are angry that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was replaced with a conservative justice or a lot more conservative than her. And so now, Biden's talking about packing the court will. Then the next time you get a Republican, that Republican will pack the court and the next thing you know you're going to have a Supreme Court the size of the House of Representatives. And that's the road that we are talking about being on. But what if there were we know that United States senators served for six years in a term then they have to get reelected. What if it was an 18 year appointment? It wasn't a lifetime appointment. What if they knew that they would be in there for three terms of a United States? Senator? And I obviously don't coincide and exact timeframes. But what if it was an 18 year, a 15 year appointment And then after that appointment was over because they're so staggered and when they were named, and when they were, Um uh, appointed to the bench. Then you would have the president and the Senate choosing the next one. It's an interesting idea that would stop us from justice is being on If you think about it for the people that don't like justice, Cavin our justice Barrett. They're young. They're young in comparison to a lot of other people, as were the other. Sotomayor. Um When she was appointed was not that old. Neither was Kagan that they would have time in their lifetimes. They're going to be there for could be 30 years. Is that the right thing to do? And if not, when do you kick it in? Do you say it's 18 years starting right now, Do you say it's 18 years with every justice that's on the court moving forward, which seems like the most fair way to do it. Then if you're appointed, the Supreme Court is the next justice. Let's say Breyer is the next one to go. If there's a justice that's appointed to replace Breyer, that justice is on the clock for 18 years, and eventually you get to a full court that each have an 18 year term. I don't know. It's something for America to think about. Is that the one you know one of the areas and I would say the one flaw in the founders you know their plan, but is that a flaw in the Founders plans should we have term limits for judicial appointments? And would it work that way? Not just for the Supreme Court. But what about about appellate courts and the other justices that are federally appointed? It's just something to consider. I thought it was an interesting story. Um, for whatever reason, the Supreme Court fascinates me, So I just thought that might be an interesting thing for the American people to consider. You know what we're gonna do? Just after 10 O'clock the U. N This one now is, uh, is, um I want to use some bad language about No, no kidding. I'll say no kidding dot com. How's that? Steve? From No kidding dot com. The Taliban is not fulfilling its promises. What a shocker. We're going to talk about the Taliban and their broken promises coming up here in just a moment. First I want to talk about AZ Valley windows, you know, being a contractor myself. I've remodeled a lot of homes. I know what good contractors look like..
The World and Everything In It
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on The World and Everything In It
"Ish. Real life came crashing through all she was still clerking for justice. Thomas husband and i found out surprise in march that i was pregnant with our first child while i was on the court and so i was super super morning sick and also delete for a lot. More doctor appointments and thank goodness. I worked for a fabulous justice and about ten weeks. I was so sick. I had to say something. Because i was disappearing into the bathroom quarterback and i just you know went in and told him and he was so excited. This is actually one of my favorite stories to tell. Because i was terrified to tell him we were going into the hardest part of the term clerk super long hours and he was my goodness. We're gonna have a baby any wanted to like. See the pictures of the ultrasounds. Every time i went so it's like it's a job in its life. It's very important job but things happen. That can't be set aside. Laura wolk said some tasks at the corridor traditionally done on paper as a blind person. She reads braille and uses talking. Computers paper could pose an accessibility problem. She said her justice made the environment conducive to a person with a disability like updating the task to make it software accessible i do think justice thomas. He is a really great example of that. You know he knew that. I could perform the functions that a clerk needed to if anything came up that was an access barrier issue. He made it very clear. It was not a reflection on me. He understood that it was something beyond my control and something that we would need to work together to fix. I asked each of the clerks. How much ideology enters into the job. Morale says there's a check on that at some level and so i'm not sure ideology factored in all that much and also i think there's also a accountability on that because i don't know of anyone. Just kind of outsource their thinking on a petition. To the pool memo. I think the memo was a piece of information but obviously everyone has access to the petition itself and conform their own judgement. So you know it's sort of like what's the point just being honest broker and maintain your credibility in the pool. Ideological differences really. Don't have to fracture people. Holly mentioned the late justices. Antonin scalia and ruth bader ginsburg they were honestly the best of friends and they would disagree pacific asli on legal issues on cases up but also had a fast friendship and enjoyed sort of the legal back and forth and eddie justice scalia justice ginsburg made his opinions better And vice versa. Ideology may not seriously affect collegiality.
KLIF 570 AM
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on KLIF 570 AM
"The answer is, of course, Texas can pass. This law in California can also pass a law that allows abortion up till a particular point. Maybe beyond depending on exactly what exactly California is doing and whether the 14th amendment and the and the due process clause and the Equal protection Clause applies to the on board right. There is a strong pro life case at the Equal Protection Clause. That everyone is entitled to equal protection of law so far as life, liberty and and due process. For example, those That that should include the unborn, right. This is the pro life case that if you are a baby in the womb, you don't get to be killed. Just because you're a baby in the womb, you're an independent human life are protected by the Constitution of the United States. But putting that aside if you if if that is not the argument that is going to be accepted by the Supreme Court, for example, which seems, would be unlikely if that's not going to be the argument accepted by the Supreme Court. The overturning of Roe versus Wade would not lead to a vast national ban on abortion. It would lead to significant restrictions in places like Texas places like Georgia places like Florida. It would lead to no restrictions in places like California because it would just get kicked back to the states. That was the situation before Roe versus Wade. There are very few restrictions on abortion in Blue states, and there are lots of restrictions on abortion in Red states. Okay, so, Chief Justice, Roberts says, you know, I'm not going to even tell you I'm voting on the underlying issue, by the way, the majority said the same thing here. Roberts just says that he would enjoy it anyway. So Robert says the statutory scheme before the court is not only unusual but unprecedented. The Legislature has imposed a prohibition on abortions after roughly six weeks and then essentially delegated enforcement of that prohibition to the populace at large, the desired consequence appears to be to insulate the state from responsibility for implementing and enforcing the regulatory regime. The state defendants argue they cannot be restrained from enforcing the rules because they're not enforcing them in the first place. I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante before the law went into effect so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner. Defendants argue existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention, and they may be correct. But the consequences of approving the state action both in this particular case in as a model for action in other areas Council at least preliminary judicial consideration before the program devised by the state takes effect. So Roberts is fully admitting his own descent here. The defendant may be right, but they are allowed to to avoid culpability here because they're not the actual defendants. But justice Roberts says. I'm going to intervene anyway, because I prefer the status quo Ante, which is pure Roberts, right. Roberts is mostly interested. Preserving what he perceives as judicial legitimacy at the expense of actual judicial accuracy. And this is why he'll rewrite the Obamacare law in order to ensure that Obamacare remains the law of the land, despite the fact that it clearly violates constitutional provisions and separation of powers. Because Justice Roberts is always thinking of the legitimacy of by the way, because he thinks like this, he's completely undermined the legitimacy of the institution. It turns out. The only way to uphold the legitimacy of your institution is to strictly interpret the rules under which we are all supposed to live that there is predictability to those rules. You're not supposed to be thinking with your finger in the wind. How do I best uphold the legitimacy of my institution? That is what undercuts your legitimacy? At least as true as a human being as well. If you're constantly vacillating, cause you're trying to please people. People don't like you as much people think you're illegitimate People don't trust you. And this is certainly true when it comes to institutions, which is why Justice Roberts is actually a terrible, terrible justice in any case. He continues, I would accordingly conclude enforcement of SB eight by the respondents to afford the District Court and the Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiff's claims. Because basically his argument is that this it upsets life too much If we don't If we don't intervene, it upsets life too much. Then there are the actual liberals on the court and their descent is basically we love abortion and abortions in the Constitution, and this is a bad law and we should strike down the law. Forget about the procedure. The law needs to go because the reality is that imminent and serious harm are on their way, and we need to. We need to make sure that the quote unquote right to abortion is preserved. Right. This is the descent. From there is one from Justice Breyer. There's another one from Justice Sotomayor. Sotomayor, of course, is the most vocal, ardent and and and Screed like she writes the most screens on the left of the court. She sort of replaced Justice Ginsburg. In that respect, she says the court's order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoy a flagrantly unconstitutional law. Engineers prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny. A majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. Okay, it's not flagrantly unconstitutional. Roe versus Wade is flagrantly anti constitutional. It is a made up law out of whole cloth pulled directly. From the colon of the justices in that case, particularly Harry Blackmun, but She says. This is blatantly unconstitutional, which is, alas, since her actual care about the Constitution is basically zero. Just last night, the court silently acquiesced in the states enactment of a law that flats nearly 50 years of federal precedence. Wow! 50 years of bad federal judicial president has been overturned. Somebody sound the alarm..
Stay Tuned with Preet
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet
"Yeah there's this case that's in the way let's call roe v wade ignore it overrule it directly and in may be and i'm wondering what you think about this. The brazenness of this new legal argument is a result of the makeup of the court and just to give people a sense of how head on the brief is by mississippi. Here's here's some of what. The brief says quote under the constitution may estate prohibit elective abortion before viability. Yes why these are rhetorical questions in the brief itself. Why because nothing. In constitutional text structure history or tradition supports a right to abortion. A prohibition on elective abortions is therefore constitutional if it satisfies the rational basis review that applies to all laws end quote and. then it goes on to say quote. This case is made hard only because roe v wade and planned parenthood of southern pennsylvania. The casey hold that the constitution protects the right to abortion fifty years fifty years of abyss cases made hard only because of roe casey. That's somewhat significant and i was kind of taken aback. Forget about what. My views are on the particular issue on the policy issue. That's an unusual sentence to say. Go to court and say this case is only hard because president says. We can't do this. what do you make of that. I mean it's absolutely astonishing and think about all of the issues that could now be reversed if we decide that well. The last fifty years of supreme court precedent isn't particularly persuasive. This case is let's pro segregation. This case is made hard only because of brown v board of education exactly. That was exactly the issue that comes to mind. Why not go back to plus versus ferguson. And you know it's absolutely. I'm just gonna say fascinating so i don't have to say something that all all regret later on. The state of mississippi has the hubris to make the argument. That modern women in america seem to be doing just fine. They've got great jobs. They're very successful. And the response that i would make to. That is something that we've talked about before. Actually that justice ginsburg said in her dissenting shelby county when she talked about the stupidity of abandoning your umbrella in the middle of a rain storm. And that's really what. Mississippi is arguing for here. They're saying we'll look abortion. Laws have worked so well. They've balanced rights between prenatal birth rights and women's agency over their bodies so well that women have made these great strides. so now we can just undo all of that. That's essentially what this brief is saying. Current one more sentence please from the brief just so the non-lawyers understand how nutty it is. of course. Nuttiness is in the eyes of the beholder and depends on what the makeup of the court is and the brief says row in case you're thus at odds with the straightforward constitutionally grounded answer to the question presented so the question becomes whether this court should overrule those decisions it should and then here's the sentence that is striking to me. The story decisive case for overruling. Roe and casey is overwhelming which is odd because starting to size. This is about adherence to precedent and rohan. Casey are the relevant supreme precedents in the matter. So the idea the start. What am i missing. The story decides case for overruling started. This isis is overwhelming. Does that make sense no. There's absolutely nothing here that makes sense and you know on the same note. There's an emeka brief filed and in this case emeka says a brief filed by people who are friends of the court who maintained that they have an interest in the outcome and in this situation. The mac are senators holly lee and crews who say that because they are legislators they have some interest in sticking their their business into this issue and their argument..
Democracy Now! Audio
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio
"You respond to both? I'd say, you know, that I don't appreciate the charge language. I don't like being told that I'm going to be corralled or a cabin. Like I'm a piece of property, you know, for especially for minority lawmakers. That's especially sensitive. So I'd ask the governor to maybe, you know, get out that thesaurus and use another word. But I will also say that we're not going to be bullied or intimidated by anybody, including the governor or our colleagues. We have a job to be the voice of our constituents. I represent. 180000 hard-working men, women mostly blue-collar Westside, San antonians from San Antonio, Texas, Latinos. And I am their voice. And when people want to take away their voice at The Ballot Box, and I'm going to stand up, I'm going to push back, I'm going to say no, I'm going to use every tool in my bucket to defend them. And the tool that I happen to use today is in the Texas Constitution. So for any Republican, including the governor, if they are so distraught about what I did, what my colleagues did Ed To exercise our rights under the Texas Constitution. Their fight is with the Constitution, they can change it if they want to. But as long as we have that rule in our constitution we will use. It took it is necessary and when it comes to voting rights and our democracy it is necessary. And representative could you talk about the US senators that are them in Washington Democrats that are still reluctant to eliminate the or opposed to eliminating the filibuster. So that some of the Voting Rights act's bed before the Congress could pass, or are you intending to try to meet with Senator manchin and Senator kyrsten Sinema? Yes, you know, at the moment I think final preparations being made for a a meeting with Senator manchin. I'm not advise as to the update on Senator Cinema but there are multiple requests and make no mistake. I mean we were not just here for a few days. I mean, some of us are willing to stay here as long as it takes, even until the August recess to be here in the back up for democracy. And so we will get our moment as lawmakers, representative Crockett and I are are pretty astute. We are found when we don't want to be found. And so we certainly know how to linger, the hallways of the US Capitol and and we can find those senators and have those moments to have that engagement. But I have to tell you, I mean, listen, this is a long game. This is a marathon and, and I'm not looking for an overnight success, but we have something this pendulum swing. But, but let's look at the big picture. I mean, we have the voice of the president of the United States. Making a very powerful speech on voting rights, the most powerful woman in the world wage. Decided without even making it without even having it on her schedule. Put a meeting with us together at the last minute and stood with us for an hour and half to tell us that we are fighting the right fight off that we need to continue to fight the side and and how you know our actions today are very reflective of the actions of Frederick Douglass the suffragettes and all the folks who fought for the Voting Rights Act in nineteen sixty five off that we need to continue with this fight and we need to overcome the struggle. And so we're in it for the long haul. Senator mentions move the long way on. This one, leader Schumer has said, the domestic agenda will happen before the August 6th recess or there may not be a recess and voting rights. As a part of the domestic agenda, I have to be hopeful that we're moving in the right direction. I'm just reading from the guardian right now. It says table Democrats in the house that's in the US House of Representatives are spearheading a new effort to convince, the Senate to carve out a historic exception to the filibuster. That would allow them to place. Through their Marquee voting rights and election reform legislation over unanimous Republican opposition. This is led by Congress member Clyburn in the house leadership. You know, when you approve a Supreme Court Justice, you don't need a supermajority, you just need more than fifty votes. And there are some for the same thing when it comes to voting rights. Can you talk about where that's J stands? And what difference that would make state representative Trey? Martinez Fischer? Yes, I hope I have the the honor to shake represent cliburn's hand before I go back to Texas. The only word I have for that is awesome. That is simply awesome. And again, it's the momentum that I'm talking about. You know, we seem to forget as a nation that went off. Obama had the opportunity to nominate Merrick Garland to the United States, Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell, would not let that happen. And and then when Donald Trump became president and there was this dog That we had in the aftermath of losing Justice Ginsburg. You saw the Senate dismantle rules so that they could get an appointment to US. Supreme Court, this is what we're talking about. We're talking about the black box and the exception to the filibuster. And when Republicans use it, we speak out. And we say when we get Empower expect the same thing or here we are, we are at that moment and we're not trying to do this, you know. For everything we're talking about a narrow exception for voting rights and and and represent Clyburn is right there. Should be no rule or tradition. That takes a page out of the Constitution. The United States Constitution and throws it in the trash. We should not disregard our United States Constitution for some tradition. Many would say a tradition that maybe did not think about the the Lucidity of African Americans, Latinos, and Asians at the time that these Traditions were were instituted. So look our country has evolved and if we are really overcome, like many people think well then we have to overcome. Yep. Traditions as well as relics of the Jim Crow past as relative. The Old South, we need to put these things to bed especially when it comes to voting rights. And there is there is a number of wage is it can be done and I think the house and represent Clyburn is is on the right track. And I'd like to go back to representative Jasmine Crockett for a moment. President Biden. Gave this a passionate speech. Oh, I'm sorry. So she's gone so long. I will I will ask then representative Martinez, President Biden. Gave this this passionate speech in Philadelphia yesterday. What more do you think he could do to achieve passage of voting rights legislation. Well first, let me say it's an honor to stand with President Biden and vice president. He took this issue. They have not been quiet about this. This is not a secret. They want voting rights reform. They want for the people like they want the John Lewis act, the White House has spoken. The US House has spoke to the Senate is deadlocked and there is a fifty-fifty split and so, yes, you are right. We do need to hear the president's voice and we need to have that final nudge in the fourth quarter. We yep. Three men and women in America to step up and we were all doing our part. I mean, you know, we as Texas lawmakers came to the nation's capital because we knew the eyes of the nation were looking at us in Texas. And we wanted to come to Washington in hopes of rally in the nation. We are now in the process of rallying, this nation and to Rally the administration and we want the Senate to hear us. And not only do we want the Senate to hear us, we want them to act. And so listen, we are all speaking. We are all using one voice, one Collective, passionate voice, and the ball is in the hands of the US Senate. And we need to get this.
WBAP 820AM
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on WBAP 820AM
"2 34 news talking 20 w B A P. Dan Amanda's in for Rick Roberts, So looks like we're in a pauses. I looked to my left it my way too big TV in my basement where I'm broadcasting from And it looks like the impeachment trial. Is that a pause right now, But let me tell you something. There was a lot of words today. And not a lot was said I'm just going to say that. I mean how? How, buddy? Let me ask you this question. How many hours do we need to go through? All of these videos. All of these these, you know, barbarians bursting through the gate and roaming through the Capitol building. I've said this the last several days, we know that there was violence. We know that stuff happened and it was bad stuff. But here's the thing. The legal question. Did Donald Trump inspired this violence? No, he did not. You know, I love how the democrats and there they were last couple of days. Oh, we've got this new evidence. Wait till you see this new evidence. This new evidence was nothing but Mitt Romney running down the hallways of Congress of the Capitol building. Really? That was it. And is it disturbing what we're seeing? Of course it's disturbing. You know, you've got a bunch of people that are running through the Capitol building. They're chanting, you know, Where's Nancy? And Hang Mike Pence? Yeah, that's scary as all get out. And I don't. I don't fault them for a moment being scared. You know the senators and the folks in the House of Representatives. I don't fault them for being scared. But to try to take that that moment in history and say, Well, this is why Donald Trump needs to never run for president again. I just think that that's wrong. You know, I played you some audio of Jim Jordan. One of my favorite by the way, when my favorite to congressman by the way that Devon unions was also on Sean Hannity show last night on Fox News. And he brought up some really good points in point number. One is listen. Not only do they not have evidence, but I would also say, Let's look at the words of some of these Democrats from their path. They just don't have any evidence. They haven't had any evidence for five years. They corrupted our intelligence agencies. We just did an impeachment a year ago. And look, the same thing holds true today. There should we should know exactly how many people entered that capital. We should have an idea of who was actually breaking the windows. We should actually interview all of those people and say Did you talk to Donald Trump? Did you talk to anybody in the White House? And I think that's what Jim's talking about about having due process. But truly happening here is that you've got the radical left. That's in total control of the government now. They don't want Donald Trump to win. They don't They fear his rallies. They fear that 74. A half million people voted for Donald Trump. That's what's really going on here. The rest of America actually is wondering. Why can't we get the vaccines? For example in the California? Yep, That's what I said. So there's a lot of people it is just going back to what happened this morning and DFW. With all of this horrendous weather and these eight deaths, this is Real America. And so you've got Devon New Net. Nunez, you've got Jim Jordan. And you've got the Republicans in basically and I saw this thing from Jonathan Turley, who is a very respected constitutional lawyer in and he's saying that the Democrats And by the way, I've seen this a lot of different places. I think I've even said this. I'm no constitutional lawyer. Trust me. But even Jonathan Turley came out and said that one of the major mistakes That these Democrats are making is they're making it, making it about language. They're making it about three words, fight like hell. Well, guess what? If you go back in time. And you look at the former tweets and in some of the things that some of these Democrats have said They have used the same language. The same terminology, literally the same Flay's Is Donald Trump. Fight like hell. Listen to this. This is from this came out a little bit ago. From the New York Post Unearthed tweets show Jamie Raskin. And Joe Biden both saying, fight like Hell now, Jamie Raskin, who is actually right there in front of the podium Right now Democrat out of Maryland. He is the lead house impeachment manager. He has. Well, he has used the term fight like hell. Yet they're saying that Trump was wrong for using that same terminology. Now here's the thing. When Jamie Raskin used it. He didn't lead to riots. When Donald Trump used it. I also don't believe that it led to riots. The Democrats are saying that it did. The Democrats are saying that Donald Trump using this kind of incendiary language Is the man that is solely responsible for what happened. In Washington, D C at the Capitol building. And so they're making it about words. And when you make it about words, and then you start looking with some of these, some of these Democrats have said they're dead in the water. So Jamie Raskin. He tweeted this out quite some time ago. Well, not quite Some time is a running time of the death of Justice Ginsburg. She says the GOP rush to replace Justice Ginsburg is all about destroying the affordable care act, women's healthcare and reproductive freedom and the voting rights and civil rights of the people. Then, he says. We must fight like hell. Stop this assault on health care and the constitution. No word on if Jamie Raskin is including that in his commentary as he is standing right now in front of the microphone in the podium on the floor of the Senate..
77WABC Radio
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Back with my co host. The coal is here. Why will defend until the day I die? This management has launched an all out assault because the protests of the many hipsters millennials who work it don't even listen to talk radio. I might I don't As much as a pretend I asked him I do. Q and A's with that. Yeah. You hear what? Bernie incident, Huh? No, No, Not this morning. Yeah, I know what you were listening to power 105, right? More guns, more hip hop, more violence, more drugs. Because Because Charlotte made the God shall remain the God. Right? Hey, Bernie and said, right You notice I Eric Adams. He wants to be the next mail over my dead body. What he tells Bernie and say when they're on. Hey, Bernie and said, you're my favorite morning show. Really? Come on, if he had to make a choice before the electorate. Is he going to say I listen toe Bernie and said my favorite morning program on W A, B C or Charlotte, Man, God and the Breakfast club. Listen, just be thankful he didn't say the mornings you with Bernie and said, Yeah, anyway, the point being is that schmuck said parts to Steven believe that crap I could see out, said would. He likes to get stroked? He's a peacock. But Bernie he's a street guy Monroe project So Tamayo projects he knows a Eric Adams sells them Wolf tickets, but anyway, enough of the mayor's race, let's talk briefly about what we just heard Come from our news woman's mouth. Oh, that Murphy, the governor in New Jersey, because everyone a knucklehead, it's going to allow for an expansion of indoor dining from 25% to 35%. How does he quantify the extra 10%? How you can't even make money if you have 50% indoor dining, so he ratcheted up 10%. And what does that mean? Maybe one more table, maybe two chairs. You know, they're not gonna let you sit at the bar. Get a few drinks in advance. So you end up going to your table and actually buying more food. More entree. S'more deserves more. Jakes. Who the hell comes up with this or we're going to allow you. I'm here. Who's your daddy? He might as well be saying, I'm your daddy. You do as I tell you. 25% to 35% and he he acts like he's doing you a favor if you're in the restaurant or the bar business, or you're an employee in the massive hospitality industry out there and you're up on the shelf in your unemployed 1 808 for a W A B C That's 1 808 489222, but let's get down to brass tacks about Joe Biden, Joe Biden. He's got writer's script. He is signing so many executive orders. They're flying fast and furiously off of his pen at a unbelievable rate. But then again, you know trump same thing, so I'll do it with executive order. Cause I can't get it through the legislative process. What happened to the executive that judicial and the legislative do you know, the schmuck departs Chuck E. Cheese human. At one point I thought there were only two levels of government. The executive and the legislative. He forgot all about the courts, including at that time. Kingsburg Supreme Court justice who alive who was alive who had graduated from the same school with him. Managed in high school. We are here like Bernie, the Alka Kaka, Sanders and our own cousin Brucie that you can hear on Saturday nights from 6 to 10. I wonder if he went to school with this Mount departs Chuck E Cheese Huma. Well, Bernie the out the Caca Sanders. Or the departed Justice Ginsburg Anyway, That's a question. Ask Cousin Brucie. You don't wanna miss it, Boy, John Catsimatidis, bringing back bringing off family all together. Entertainment programming on the weekends. Talk more talk more talk more talk. That's what it is. Well, let's get down to this immigration issue in these executive orders. So on one of these executive orders to undo all the immigration, I'll call him cancelations that Trump had put into effect most of those by executive order. Biden's order requested a review of the trump immigration policy that requires a specific review. The public charge rule. That prevents immigrants on public assistance from receiving a green card. Now I think we can all relate to our family situations. Most of us if not for our grand parents or great grand parents coming to this country wherever they was a country of origin. I mean, I don't think many of us have watched. You know, we can relate to the Pilgrim's, You know. Plymouth Rock Wall boys that disappointing when you see appointments Rocket Plymouth Rock Beach. Or even down in Virginia. The colony That was set up there that now everybody What is that? 16 12 16 12. What is in New York times say, 16 12. Whatever. Whatever the point being is, most of us cannot trace our lines of lineage. So the wife who landed at Plymouth Rock or in Virginia. Many, many years ago. 16 19 Excuse me. I knocked off seven years from it because, according to Spike Lee, 40 acres and a mule, that's when history of America started who is all about slavery? Whatever happened in the pilgrims? Hey, we put a little we'll save that for another day. Can you believe this? You used to have to come into this country and someone had to vouch for you. Remember my grandfather in the Italian side. My mother's side, Francesca. Fidel and Nicoletta Bianchi know from Andrea Little Town on the Adriatic coast, a body Um, opposite Albania. You know, you swim across the Adriatic sea and you hit Albania. Although you see Albanians swimming across, try to get the body. A lot of them are still that But he had to have a sponsor here in America. So a long time ago, when he was in Italy he had kidnapped my grandmother, Francesca. Because she was from a family of wealth educated and he could not read or write, and he was a ditch taken. So it was not everybody who did this, but he was getting it. Nicoletta was way above his petty creek, so he kidnapped her took her into the mountains. They lived in a huge that a wine vet and actually, the family of Nicolette if they had found him would have killed him. And the law would have permitted them to do that. Kill him. But they had fornicating and copulate ID. And when they discovered them in that wine barrel, that huge wine vet she was pregnant. So the father of Nicoletta had to accept Fidel, uneducated couldn't re couldn't right. As his son in law. I hated every second of it. So my grandfather hey, used to sell horses Partners who come on, it was a mud hut. In which there were 12 Children, most of whom slept in the same bed as feed. Ellen Nicoletta was no separate bed on Let's say had gotten a little older, and they were all on their own. But at one point to as many as 12 kids sleeping in the bed with Fidel and Nicoletta Bianchi, no And so he would take these old horse. He's broken down horses who would normally go to a glue factory, and it's like a used car. You know when all of a sudden you customize it, but you know, it's a rent direct. And he would brush the main He would clean the teeth. The hooves he would make the horse look good. Um, I am Mary at the time, said Pop, Pop. Why is it the horse is in the house with us. Remember, it's a one room house Almeida month. And naturally how smelly that was right. And my grandfather said to Miami area because he brings money into the house. You cost us money. Oh, come on the horse I'm going to show And he would sell these horses and he would make a deal. And six weeks later the horse would drop dead because it was like soon to die anyway, and the guy who bought it for my grandfather, he del would say. If Edo you know you show me a bum horsey. How do I know what you did to the horse? My grandfather? He Della Bianca. I don't know what you fed him. Look. He was in perfect condition. When I sold it to my grandfather, Fidel Bianchi know could have been a perfect used car Sales. Person of rent directs. And that's how you age the.
860AM The Answer
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on 860AM The Answer
"Because of Doe versus Bolden Ando vs Bolt, and he said. There's an exception to all of this. And that is if in the mind of the physician, the life or health of the mother. And he doesn't use the word mother, he says Woman because if she's a mother, you're acknowledging the child's life. The life or health of the woman. Is in any way endangered. He can do the abortion. Two important things. It's in his mind. It doesn't say if she asks, he says, is dependent on what he thinks. And that's very important. We know that Justice Ginsburg understood that The black man is only empowering doctors to kill at their own discretion and that the word health he went on to define it isn't just her physical health or the health of the child. You could do an abortion on a physically healthy mother who has a physically healthy baby, if by health what he means and he spells out it can be the emotional psychological Sociological health. Any of these factors can be considered the health of the woman. In the mind. Of the abortionist. That's why abortion on demand is legal. Because the DOE versus Bolton decision That's the companion decision that makes Rose so incredibly lethal, and people don't understand that. So we've been talking about row. It does not make any sense, as was said in the descent to Akron Sandra Day, O'Connor said Roe v. Wade has no foundation in either wall or logic. It's on a collision course with itself. It's Dove versus Bolton, the conjoined twin of Roe v. Wade. It's never talked about. You need to know about it. You need to know is you think about the abortion debate. Be aware that Robie Wade is in a sense enacted and all of its confusion is cleared by.
WMAL 630AM
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"So you know, despite all their differences, and all the many things they disagreed about, including a number of opinions in this collection, they had a wonderful friendship when they were able to kind of focus on the things they had in common. Your dad and Justice Ginsburg. I don't know the statistics on how often they concurred or dissented on cases. But I imagine that they disagreed. Maybe as much as any two Recent justices have my right. Yeah, I think that's that sounds right. I don't know the statistics, either. I think people would be surprised by how often they agreed with each other. But on the real hot button cultural cases, they often disagree. Um, you know, one of her most important or most famous opinions was Virginia Military Institute case from the mid nineties. And my my father wrote a dissent. Uh, to that case, which is in this collection, the essential Scalia and it was hey actually gave her the draft of that dissent a little bit earlier than one usually does just so that she would have more time to kind of Deal with it, and gravel grapple with his arguments. And, yeah, some of his most, uh, stinging dissents were in response to opinions. She didn't necessarily right but but joined, And I think that's probably true. Vice versa tell the story about the big bouquet of roses she got from him. Yeah, well, my dad would get her roses for her birthday. And I guess the, uh, I think the last time he did that, so the year before he died, one of the editors of the essential Scalia Judge Jeffrey Sutton was visiting my father in chambers on Justice Ginsburg's birthday. And he saw that my dad had two dozen roses for justice Ginsburg and judge sudden started teasing Dad saying, You know, I haven't even gotten my wife two dozen roses over the course of our entire marriage. Why would you do this? And besides, when was the last time she cited with you on a really important 54 decision? You know, he's poking fun, You know, not not really being serious, but my dad Davis seriously answer, which was some things are more important than votes, and I think I just kind of a great encapsulation of their of their relationship of their friendship. They had. They had very different opinions of politics and of their jobs as the judges and of what laws meant what the Constitution meant, but, uh, how they voted wasn't the biggest factor in their relationship. It wasn't that those opinions didn't matter. And it wasn't that they compromised their beliefs for each other. But they didn't let those very strongly held beliefs undermine their very deep friendship through a collection of supreme Justice incident. Scully is writing sort of like a greatest hits album. It's opinions and other writing about the law and the Constitution again called the Essential Scalia. Yeah, you must be awfully proud and happy to have this stuff all collected in one place for posterity. This is really just a collection of his greatest legal writings, Opinions, speeches, essays and they, you know, collected together, give a really good Uh, sense of why exactly. He was such a significant Supreme Court justice on it's It's there, you know, having in one collection really makes it tangible for anybody toe understand that we'll just is illegal reference work..
KTRH
"justice ginsburg" Discussed on KTRH
"Trey Yingst 2020 also took Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September. The alien justice passed away in the midst of the presidential election. Ah, contentious fight to fill her vacant seat in the Supreme Court began almost immediately. Eventually, Ginsburg would be replaced by President Trump's nominee, Amy Cockney. Barrett. While America was still mourning the feminist icon, we look back at Justice Ginsburg's deep decades long friendship with the late conservative justice. Incident, Scalia Christopher Scalia, Justices, Scalia son told the Fox News rundowns Chris Foster how the inspiring bond between the two began. Their friendship went back really, to the early eighties, when they were Judges together on the D C circuit Court of Appeals, which is kind of like the second most important court in the country, and they had a good working relationship that which really started back then. They would help each other revised their drafts and their opinions that apparently the other judges on that court really didn't like getting advice about their writing and how Improved the clarity of what they were writing and the force of their arguments. But justice Ginsburg liked getting and receiving that kind of advice, and so did my dad, and they formed what he called a mutual improvement society during their time on the court there. And, uh, it and they had other things in common. They were. They had similar backgrounds that they were. Both New Yorkers grew up in in New York around the same time, different boroughs but around the same time and shared a love of opera. Good wine. Uh, Eating good food. Both of their spouses were excellent cooks. Marty Ginsburg, in particular, is kind of a legendary cook, who would put together wonderful meals every New Year's Eve and they would celebrate New Year's Every every year is well. So you know, despite all their differences, and all the many things they disagreed about, including a number of opinions in this collection, um They had a wonderful friendship when they were able to kind of focus on the things they had in common. Your dad and Justice Ginsburg. I don't know the statistics on how often they concur, dissented on cases. But I imagine that they disagreed. Maybe as much as any two Recent justices have my right. Yeah, I think that's that sounds right. I don't know the statistics, either. I think people would be surprised by how often they agreed with each other. But on the real hot button cultural cases, they often disagree. Um, you know, one of her most important or most famous opinions was Virginia Military Institute case from the mid nineties. And my my father wrote a dissent to that case, which is in this collection, The essential Scalia and it was hey actually gave her the draft of that dissent a little bit earlier than one usually does just so that she would have more time to kind of Deal with it, and gravel grapple with his arguments. And, yeah, some of his most stinging dissents were in response to opinions. She didn't necessarily right but but joined, And I think that's probably true. Vice versa tell the story about the big bouquet of roses she got from him. Well, my dad would get her roses for her birthday and I guess the, uh, I think the last time he did that so the year before he died, one of the editors of the essential Scalia Judge Jeffrey Sutton was visiting my father in chambers on Justice Ginsburg's birthday. And he saw that my dad had two dozen roses for Justice Ginsburg And, uh, Judge sudden started teasing dad saying, you know, I haven't even gotten my wife two dozen roses over the course of our entire marriage. Um, why would you do this? And besides, when was the last time she cited with you on a really important 54 decision? You know, he's poking fun, You know, not not really being serious, but my dad Davis. Serious answer, which was some things are more important than votes, and I think I just kind of a great encapsulation of there. Of their relationship of their friendship they had they had Very different opinions of politics and of their jobs as judges and of what laws meant what the Constitution men but Uh, how they voted wasn't the biggest factor in their relationship. It wasn't that those opinions didn't matter. And it wasn't that they compromised their beliefs for each other. But they didn't let those very strongly held beliefs undermine their very deep friendship through a collection of Supreme Court justice incident. Scalia's writing sort of like a greatest hits album. It's opinions and other writing about the law and the Constitution again called the Essential Scalia. Yeah, you must be awfully proud and happy just to have this stuff all collected in one place for posterity. This is really just a collection of his greatest legal writings, Opinions, speeches, essays and they, you know, collected together, give a really good Uh, sense of why exactly. He was such a significant um, Supreme Court justice on it's It's there, you know, having in one collection really makes it tangible for anybody toe understand that we'll just is illegal reference work. You've got to think it's gonna end up being bought by or four Ah, lot of lawyers and judges. Yeah, no absolutely. And law students, I hope You know that? He he wrote. Clearly, he wrote, hey, had so many memorable phrases and his opinions. His logic was so strong and convincing. That people just kind of they often went to his opinions first. And so it's good for people to kind of have that as a resource. Christo keep going to those opinions, even even after his passing a lot of times if he had a vote of personal vote on how a case would turn out it may or may not. A lot of times did align with how he ruled, but sometimes it probably wouldn't have right. Yeah, I think that's true. And that's especially true in one example is when he sided with the majority in the flag burning case. The majority ruled that Um, it was constitutional. Sorry. Burning the flag was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment, so prohibiting that in the state law was unconstitutional, and my father often explained that he did not like The idea of flag burning. If he were a king, he would ban it. But it clearly to him falls under the protection of the protection of the First Amendment, and a lot of conservatives to this day do not like that opinion. But my father thought the Constitution was clear about that. There are many examples in this collection, the essential Scalia of instances in which he stands up for the rights of the accused defendant's rights. There's a famous case in here where It's search and seizure cases as well there a couple of those in here where he just thought, you know the police did not have authority, for example, to use scans of houses, Tol identify Merrill who was growing marijuana without that was an illegal search examples like that s so if he could just pass a law that was one thing, but Um, you know, actually started there couldn't be even be lost for that because they so clearly violated the Constitution, even though obviously he wouldn't have approved of those particular actions. Sure, hey, was also notice a talker during oral arguments, he asked, asked a lot of questions. And clearly. Sometimes, though, they weren't really questions. They were just arguments he was making to his fellow justices. Now, do you think he went into most cases with his mind made up based on the briefs and the president? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but that usually the case. I think that the justices, you know, I can't say for certain, but my hunch is that they often have go in with a pretty good idea, but I think for the most part, they do ask questions, not just tow. Not just to be heard or not just to make arguments, but because they want to really engage with the arguments that the lawyers are making in the forward to this collection, Justice Kegan first of all, very happy that she agreed to write this beautiful forward, But she she says that she says just that. No dad would ask these questions because he loved argument and kind of loved mixing it up. It wasn't just kind of wasn't just for show though he did. I think you're right. He was very kind of an engaging speaker and There was some study years ago that found he was he was the funniest justice By the standards of that he drew the most laugh right from from the courtroom during oral arguments, which you know, obviously isn't the most important thing to do, but just shows how much he He enjoyed that process to that love.
News, Traffic and Weather
Amy Coney Barret Confirmed To Supreme Court
"The newest Supreme Court Justice Amy Cockney, Barrett, sworn in at the court Tuesday, a B C's and as delicate Tara with the story hours after being confirmed by the Senate Justice Barritt taking the judicial oath at the Supreme Court, officially kicking off her tenure on the nation's highest court. Garrett, assuming the late Justice Ginsburg's chambers with Ginsberg's clerks being reassigned to other justices Ginsburg passed in September at the age
WBZ Afternoon News
Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as newest Supreme Court justice
"This morning at the Supreme Court Justice Amy Cockney Barrett was officially sworn in here's A Bee sees a nestling patera hours after being confirmed by the Senate with a 52 to 48 vote Justice Barritt taking the judicial oath at the Supreme Court, officially kicking off her tenure on the nation's highest court. Baird, assuming the late Justice Ginsburg's chambers, with Ginsberg's clerks being reassigned to other justices. Ginsberg passed in September at the age of 87 as delicate. Terra ABC NEWS Washington
WTOP 24 Hour News
High court nominee Barrett to tell senators courts 'should not try' to make policy decisions
"Supreme Court should not try to make policy. That's what Supreme Court nominee Amy Cockney. Barrett will tell senators in her opening remarks this week. She instead believes policy decision should be left. Political branches of government and opening remarks from her confirmation hearings obtained by The Associated Press Bear. It also says I have been nominated to fill Justice Ginsburg seat, but no one will ever take her place. She also says she plans to have the same perspective as her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Who was in her words devoted to his family, resoluteness beliefs and fearless and criticism.
On One with Angela Rye
Dont Mess With Notorious RBG: How to Fight For The Supreme Court
"To this week's on one with Angela. Arrived podcast. NATORI is a CB does not have the same notoriety as notorious RPG and what is really notorious is the Senate Republicans for trying to bulldoze the traditional Supreme Court nominations process. So we have assembled an all star legal panel today that also reflects how Supreme Court should look it probably also think here to break it all the way down like a fraction are Kristen Clark President and Executive Director of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Christopher. Kane. Chief counsel of demand Justice Ellie Misao justice correspondent at the nation and Tina Johnson President and CEO of times up. Hello everybody. Angela. Thank you so much for being here. So I want to start with giving honor where honor is due in. That is to start with Ruth Bader GINSBURG who we lost on September. Eighteenth. I feel like she held on just as long as she possibly could end for that I say thank you. To our BG to the to the real story is and I just wanted to give you all the opportunity to share some thoughts on route Baiter ins, birds passing on her impact in jurisprudence in which he wrote some phenomenal opinions including just two words, I dissent and you know anything else on your hearts to share about that because then we're going to get into the battle that is the Supreme Court nominations but I really WanNa give her some some time just do. Well, if you're a lover of justice than you definitely are feeling this, you're feeling the loss of Justice Ginsburg on the court right now having been inside the court was always great to see her in action. She was always an active questioner questioner always asking all of the tough questions and and really pushing. The. The Orleans before her. I also think though about Thurgood Marshall and what he meant for the court and Thurgood Marshall is somebody who dedicated his career to the practice of civil rights law when he was appointed in one, thousand, nine, hundred, sixty, seven, and justice Ginsburg frank lease the only a second civil rights lawyer to sit on the court. So right now we're at a moment where there's that void that vacancy in terms of somebody brings that lens to the issues that come before the court. So for me that really matters because we're not getting that with this nominee has been put forward. I'm. Christian I agree with you completely, I mean this this her career even before she got on the court is astonishing in all of us who are working women who are women who can sign around credit card applications and hold a mortgage in our own name and pursue our careers including. Alexis. Johnson wrote this morning you know including the current nominee to the court. We are -bility to do that to repair Berg I mean she dreamed up the idea that the equal protection clause should cover women equally as we weren't in there we were you know the kinds of. Laws kept women out of the economic life of our country. Were not challenged until she had the foresights quite frankly and the legal ability to think that up and percents that and so even before she got on the court Mike Thurgood, Marshall's she had transformed landscape forever for all of us and my dog is Getting this okay. Tina go ahead see. My my story about Ginsburg is is a personal one. So I was in high school I was on trial and a week with states or nationals whatever and one of the guest judges was at school year. And then after the thing he he gave a talk for for the kids and we got to ask questions I asked him a question and answering made fun of. I I asked him how he squared his opinions about originalist. I didn't know what was called originalism. Downing intangible whatever. But how he's wearing those opinions. Brownie. Be Bored event, which was obviously against the original intent of the founding slavers. Yet like super important right and he laughed at me and then everybody else laughed and you're like I. Don't know what they're teaching school and everybody else. A bunch of jokes and then some like really not really credible answer I would later. So he kind of any make of me dismissing it is sat down kind of embarrassed son how GINSBURG heard this story? I am magid now that since they were friends was probably bragging. Point about how? Of. This seventeen year old or sixteen year old. But anyway she's GonNa Message to remark. That was held back. Kids they keep descending. which you know is again, I didn't even realize how awesome and amazing was. Sixteen seventeen year old kid. But it really to me goes to show that at even kind of social setting in A. In a private setting as it must have been for her earth the story. The her her commitment to raising credible questions and raising the sense not backing down She lived at right and she gave me a nice little note when I was a kid. To keep trying.
The Electorette Podcast
Fatima Goss Graves on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Legacy on the Supreme Court
"Look Grapes welcome to the podcast. Thank you. I'm glad to be with here. First of all, I want to congratulate you on winning this year is John W Gardner leadership? Award that's that's huge. Thank. You it came as. To tell you that came as a huge surprise to me, and it was kind of beautiful boost at a time where we could use it. So thank you I, appreciate that yeah. We don't get a lot of opportunities to celebrate a good thing so I wanted to mention that. Are you just feeling generally we feel like we've been going from you know one kind of bruising experience to the next every day there's something new and you know most recently we lost I'm justice GINSBURG. So I have to tell you that at some point in time and I don't know when that is I will process how I'm really really doing. But at days I am just geared up to fight. We I. Feel really disappointed that we didn't really get the time and space to truly honor Justice Ginsburg legacy to spend the time and space doing that over a period. But we are also facing a pretty existential threat around our democracy right now, and that's where my attention has to focus. Yeah, I. Remember you know that Friday when she passed in kind of thinking the same thing we were there were these two conversations going on right one about her legacy what that meant for. Women and this country generally and democracy, and what we're going to do about the crisis that you alluded to right I mean the truth is, is that we have to do something in relation to this nomination and this process which isn't really legitimate right so we're kind of morning and finding at the same time, which is really hard. It is hard. You know I like to think of it as in some ways we're fighting for her legacy and in her name you know she. Stood for Justice and equality she dreamed up a legal framework when the law had not yet recognized one and brilliantly advocated and led the Supreme Court to recognize the same. And even as recently as last terms, she really did the work of reminding the court what was important and so when when I think about how we have to galvanize over the next few weeks and how women in particular have to show up. Partly. I think will be doing it in her honor and we'll be doing it as a tribute to her legacy right and I think some of the energy that I felt I felt over the past week is a lot of energy from women kind of similarly to after the two thousand sixteen election and again in the two thousand eighteen during the two thousand eighteen midterms and we had the historic. In Congress, you feel the same thing like women are kind of energized to do something this election cycle you feel that again I do. I do and I almost wonder if people aren't syncing it in the way that I'm sensing an I am constantly getting calls in tax from women I know well and women I don't know very well asking what can I do on that to me is a sign that people are you know they have that they're not in their stomach and a feeling like they? Need to come out, come out around this election come out around the Supreme Court and so I I, wonder if everyone is considering bad in understanding and predictions about what's going to happen this fall one of the things I wanted to talk about was what her legacy means to you. Personally what it means to a lot of lot of women especially in the legal field and some of her most pivotal cases I was thinking through those do you have any that stick out to you as being I guess More pivotal or he'll be more impactful for women generally. Yeah. I mean she is obviously just a giant giant in women's rights giant in the legal field generally and. Did. That work at a time when it was unusual for women to even be lawyers at all
War Room
Ginsburg honored as Supreme Court opens new term Monday
"Court began its do term Monday by remembering the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice GINSBURG contributions as advocate jurist and citizen are immeasurable Chief Justice John Roberts Roberts, who continues to lead the court by telephone to the covert 19 Said the justices would hold a full memorial service for Ginsburg once they returned to the courtroom. I'm
WTOP 24 Hour News
Justice Ginsburg buried at Arlington in private ceremony
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died a week and a half ago at age 87 was buried today in a private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. She was laid to rest beside her husband, Martin and near some of her former colleagues on the court. Ginsberg is the 14th justice to be buried at Arlington. While the cemetery is known for its rows of white headstones. The section where the Ginsberg's are buried is an older section where markers Chosen by families are allowed and their headstone is black with a star of David at the top. The grave site is just below the final resting place of former President John F. Kennedy. Nine other justices are buried in this section, including three who Ginsberg served with
WSJ What's News
Examining the Record of Amy Coney Barrett as Nomination Fight Heats Up
"President Trump's nominee to the supreme court appeared at the White House over the weekend. Judge Amy Conybeare at pay tribute to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who seat she is hoping to fill. Should I be confirmed Will be mindful of who came The flag of the United States is still flying at half staff and memory of justice. Ruth. Bader Ginsburg to mark the end of a great. American. Life. Justice Ginsburg began her career at a time when women were not welcome in the legal profession. But she not only broke glass ceilings she smashed them. But there are many ways their philosophies are quite different judge Barrett's legal career. We'll be under the microscope in the weeks ahead. So this is a good time to talk with our justice and judiciary editor, Vivica, Novak, Vivica good to have you here. To be with mark, I want to start out with the basics just who is judge amy, coney? Barrett and why are conservatives so enthusiastic about her nomination. She is a known conservative. She was a clerk for Justice Scalia and has often spoken of him very admiringly. She's been a lot professor Notre Dame and she has continued to teach while she has been on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in general the anti-abortion groups feel very confident that she would be a vote in their favour whether she'd Overturn Roe v Wade is is unclear, but she is generally not a fan of abortion. Obviously abortion is getting a lot of discussion in this conversation, but this is a court that could. Rule on many different areas including health care even the twenty twenty election would her presence mean on the court? Well, she will be the person who gives the conservatives a six to three majority on the court, and even if Justice Roberts who has occasionally sided with the liberals even if he does that in the future on on certain cases, you know they will still have five votes, five conservative votes. So that's that's one important factor here. She will be probably not a vote in favor of upholding the affordable care act and that's one of the. First arguments. The court will hear it's coming up in November is a challenge to Obamacare and Justice Roberts a couple of years ago in another court challenge to the care he voted with the Liberals and she has actually said in a speech that she believes he voted wrong in that case in fact, he wrote the opinion she believes he was wrong. So that's one important issue coming up, and of course, the election none of us really wants to relive the two thousand election I don't think which was turned to the Supreme Court but it. Could happen it could happen, and if it does, you know there are some trepidation about the six three makeup of the court being certainly not in favor Joe Biden, we have election looming around the corner Republicans are moving forward planning to hold hearings the week of October twelfth in the hopes of confirming her before Election Day. So who will motivate more? How will this affect the election really good question conservatives generally in the past have been known to be more motivated by the prospect of putting more people on the federal courts including the Supreme Court. Democrats this time though are going to be framing things I think in terms of issues they're going to be talking about the affordable care act which most Americans are in favor of most Americans like it. They'll be talking to some degree about abortion probably not as much. They'll be talking about the election though and what could happen there. They will try very hard to peel off a couple of Republican votes. It's GonNa be tough hall, and Right now it looks like Mitch McConnell has. The votes and there isn't very much the Democrats can do about it. There may be a few procedural things that can slow things down, but it is really stretching to think that the Democrats I think could could slow this down, push it after the election, and then perhaps kill the nomination that's really pie in the sky. At this point it seems both parties feel a sense of urgency here as this is a lifetime appointment here and particularly her being so young, she's only forty eight. Could be on the court for a good long time and it's unclear. You know there are some other justices who are not that young but there are a lot who are actually not that old. So you know president trump has made it a point to name. People who have probably a good couple of decades at least on the court. Are Movements now to, for instance, put term limits on justices even if that were to make it through Congress and that's that's going to be hard to do. But even if were to make it through, even if a president were to sign it, it probably wouldn't apply to justices who are already on the court. It probably would be applied going forward. There are also people who talk about expanding the court. Some people call court packing that's kind of a derisive term, but expanding the court to add two more justices or more. That's really a tough lift but these things are being talked about more than we've heard in quite a long time. VIVICA Novak. Thanks again. Thank you.
News, Traffic and Weather
Seattle - Sen. Patty Murray: 'I cannot support' Trump's Supreme Court nominee
"Democratic Senator Patty Murray, has issued a statement in reaction to the nomination of Judge Amy Cockney Barrett. She says. Make no mistake. A vote to confirm Barrett is a vote to take away people's health care and vital, writes, she says. I oppose the nomination in the strongest terms, Senator Murray says she's going to do all she can to fulfill Justice Ginsburg's last wish. Had the president elected in November. Appoint the new justice. And Washington's other senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, is also not supporting the Cockney Barrett nomination. She says she has previously voted against Judge barrettes confirmation to the U. S Court of Appeals for the seventh Circuit because she did not believe her judicial philosophy represents a jurist who would uphold privacy and other rights guaranteed in the U. S Constitution. And Democratic House represented Pramila. Jaipal is also reacting to the nomination, she says in a statement. Any individual nominated to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court must believe in equal justice under law an opportunity for all That means protecting civil rights, women's rights and reproductive rights. Not only does Amy Cockney Barrett failed to meet that standard, but has spent years consistently and dangerously arguing against it from the federal bench, she says she strongly opposes her nomination.
1A
Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in state at U.S. Capitol
"At the Supreme Court on Friday, late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the first woman And first Jewish person ever to lie in state at the U. S. Capitol. Anita, why hasn't a woman ever help this honor before? That's a great question? You know, they've been doing this tradition since 18 52. And it hasn't been as many people as you might think. It's been about 35. So a lot of presidents, you know other other people, but mostly are obviously this is always for someone who serves in the government. Four civilians have also been honored, but it's not called lying in state. So Congress decides who does this, and, you know, obviously many elected officials in this country until more recently were men. Well, Devlin before the capital Justice Ginsburg lay in repose of the Supreme Court. Can you describe this remembrance was like and who came to pay their respects? Well, pretty much the entire city came to respect it. And it was. It was an interesting Mix because it began as sort of a spontaneous, Ah, demonstration of support remembrance that the very night of her death outside the Supreme Court. And then obviously it morphed into the official pageantry of remembrance. And, you know, I think I think the video that is probably going to be most lasting from that is People chanting against the president when he showed up, you know, I think it says something about the state of our politics right now, that even in you know, a memorial setting That the political anger is so great that people are going to essentially boo the president public. On DH That just tells you what the stakes are of that. You know, her death is obviously sad, and obviously a moment in history. But it's also another. You know another front in this political battle that were that were following Fernando what he tells about Justice Ginsburg's funeral plans and and where shall ultimately be laid to rest? Um, she will be laid to rest on Arlington National Cemetery next to her husband, Marty Ginsburg than in section that is reserved for Former members of the Supreme Court. And today, the Friday will be the on Ly Day that she will be lying in state in the U. S Capitol and the need a set of historic moment is the first woman first person was Jewish Delight in state. Let's remember that Rosa Parks laid in honor at the Capitol Rotunda, but that was 2005. And that is the distinction between laying and honor. And Ling and stay on. Only four people have leant in honor of the Capitol Rotunda. That's Reverend Billy Graham. And to our police, Capitol police officers were shot dead in AA. A shooting in the Capitol in 1998 on then Rosa Parks in 2005. But yes, this will be a very ah, you know? Speaker Pelosi has given the honor to Ah birthday there. Ginsberg to be a two capital dalliances state. Apparently there are some interesting absences, Asari. That way. We know maybe Mitch McConnell and and other members of the Republican leadership not showing up to this event. Well, there's a
Tim Conway Jr.
Justice Ginsburg becomes first woman to lie in state at the Capitol
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lain in state in the U. S. Capitol Rotunda. The ceremony included a performance by singer Denise Gravity Graves in a tribute to Ginsberg's lifelong Love for opera. Ginsberg is the first woman and first Jewish American Toe Lion State shall be buried next week at Arlington National Cemetery.
News and Perspective with Taylor Van Cise
Justice Ginsburg becomes first woman to lie in state at the Capitol
"Cases on gender, religious and racial equality, and she shattered more barriers after her death. Today, Justice Ginsburg became the first woman and first Jewish person to receive the honor of lying in state of the U. S. Capitol. ABC is Terry Moran on what's next. She will be laid to rest next week in Arlington National Cemetery that ground of heroes next to her beloved husband, Marty Ginsburg. Who died in 2010, the nation paying its final respects publicly today. Here at the Capitol, Ginsberg's casket was carried out of the capital, with the women of Congress lining the steps, their hands crossed over their hearts. You're listening to ABC News. Stay connected. Stay informed.
Fox News Rundown
The relationship between Justice Scalia and RBG
"Lies in state in the Capitol today, the first woman ever given that honor in the first Supreme Court justice since William Howard Taft and he'd also been the president. Justice. Ginsburg's casket was at the court for two days for people to pay their respects, including President Trump, and the first lady booed when they got there. The president has had nice things to say about Justice Ginsburg since her death, you may agree. You may not disagree with her, but he was an inspiration to a tremendous number of people. I say all Americans, and now, he says, it's his job to fill that seat on the court. I think it's very important that we have nine justices. And I think the system is going to go very quickly. The president plans to announce his nominee tomorrow. Joe Biden, and a lot of other Democrats say he should fill that seat if he wins the election in light of Republicans blocking President Obama from filling a seat in an election year, the seat President Obama would have filled incident. Scalia's went to Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland. For all the fighting. There's been over Justices Scalia and Ginsburg in life. They were very good friends. People always find it surprising that they were such good friends, Christopher Scully's the Eighth of Incident. Scalia's nine Children. There's a new collection published of his father's writing called The Essential Scalia. Their friendship went back. Really to the early eighties, when they were judges together on the D C circuit Court of Appeals, which is kind of like the second most important court in the country, and they they had a good working relationship that which really started back then they would help each other revised their drafts and their opinions. Apparently, the other judges on that court really didn't like getting advice about their writing and how to improve the clarity of what they're writing in the force of their arguments. But Justice Ginsburg liked getting and receiving that kind of advice, and so did my dad, and they formed what he called a mutual improvement society during their time on the court there. And And they had other things in common. They were they had similar backgrounds and that they were both New Yorkers grew up in New York around the same time, different boroughs but around the same time and shared a love of opera. Good wine eating good food. Both of their thousands were excellent cooks. Marty Ginsburg, in particular, is kind of a legendary cook, who would put together wonderful meals every New Year's Eve and they would celebrate New Year's Every every year is well. So you know, despite all their differences, and all the many things they disagreed about, including a number of opinions in this collection. They had a wonderful friendship were able to kind of focus on the things they had in common. Your dad in Justice Ginsburg, I don't know the statistics on how often they concurred or dissented on cases. But I imagine that they disagreed. Maybe as much as any two Recent justices have my right. Yeah, I think that that sounds right. I don't know the statistics, either. I think people would be surprised by how often they agreed with each other. But on the real hot button cultural cases, they often disagreed one of her most important, most famous opinions. Was Virginia Military Institute case from the mid nineties. And my My father wrote a dissent to that case, which is in this collection, the essentials, Scalia and it was hey actually gave her the draft of that descent a little bit earlier than one usually does just so that she would have more time to kind of Deal with it and grapple grapple with his arguments. And and, yeah, some of his most staying the sense we're in response to opinions. She didn't necessarily right but but joined, And I think that's probably true. Vice versa. Tell us very about the big bouquet of roses she got from him. My dad would get her roses for her birthday and I guess the Ah, I think the last time he did that. So the year before he died, one of the editors of the Essential Scalia Judge Jeffrey Sutton was visiting my father in chambers on on Justice Ginsburg's birthday. And he saw that my dad had two dozen roses for Justice Ginsburg and Judge Sutton started teasing Dad saying, You know, I haven't even gotten my wife two dozen roses over the course of our entire marriage. Why would you do this? And besides, When was the last time she cited with you on a really important 54 decision? You know, he's poking fun, You know, not not really being serious, but My dad gave a serious answer, which was some things are more important than votes. As I think I just kind of a great encapsulation of their of their relationship of their friendship they had they had Very different opinions of politics and of their jobs as a zoo judges and of what laws, men and with the Constitution, man. But, uh, how they voted wasn't the biggest factor in their relationship. It wasn't that those opinions didn't matter. And it wasn't that they compromised their beliefs for each other. But they didn't let those very strongly held beliefs undermine their very deep friendship collection of Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia is writing sort of like a greatest hits album. It's opinions and other writing about the law and the Constitution again called the Essential Scalia. This is really just a collection of his greatest Legal writings, opinions, speeches, essays and they collected together give a really good sense of white. Exactly. He was such a significant Supreme Court justice on it. They're having in one collection really makes it tangible for anybody understand that we'll just as a legal reference work. You've got to think it's going to end up being bought by or four A lot of lawyers and judges know absolutely in law students. I hope you know that he he wrote. Clearly, he wrote, Hey, had so many memorable phrases and his opinions. His logic was so strong and convincing that people just kind of they often went to his opinions first. And so it's good for people to kind of have that as a resource to keep going to those opinions. Even you know, even after His passing is also besides the legal community. It's also like you said. It's very readable, even for non lawyers for just a general interest audience who might, but he was just simply a very, very good writer. Yeah, it's exactly right. He hey, wrote. For? I guess we would now call it out of transparency. You know, Even when he was writing Supreme court opinions, he understood that they should be understood themselves by everyday citizens, not just legal eagles and people with legal degrees. He kind of a recurring theme of his opinions. Is that people should know what the court courts are doing and people that the court should not usurp power that properly belongs to the people. And I think that kind of reverence for the Democratic order is is kind of manifest in his in the clarity of his writing a lot of times if he had a vote, a personal vote on how a case would turn out it may or may not a lot of times did a line with how he ruled, But sometimes it probably wouldn't have right. Yeah, I think that's true. And that's especially true in one example is when he sided with the majority in a flag burning case. The majority ruled that, um, it was constitutional sorry from burning the flag was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment so prohibiting that in the state law was unconstitutional. My father often explained that he did not like Three idea of flag burning. If he were a king, he would ban it. But clearly to him falls under the protection of the protection of the First Amendment, and a lot of conservatives to this day do not like that opinion. My father thought the Constitution was clear about that. There are many examples in this collection, the essential Scalia of instances in which he stands up for the rights of the accused defendant's rights. There's a famous case in here where search and seizure cases as well there a couple of those in here where he just thought, you know the police do not have authority, for example, to use Scans of houses, Tio identify Marilou who was growing marijuana without that was an illegal search examples like that s so if he could just pass a law That was one thing, but actually sorry, there couldn't be even be lost for that because they so clearly violated the Constitution, even though obviously he wouldn't have approved of those particular actions. Sure. Hey, was also notice the talker during oral arguments. He has asked a lot of questions and clearly sometimes, though, they weren't really questions. They were just arguments he was making to his fellow justices. Do you think he went into most cases with his mind made up based on the briefs, and the president is a bad thing, but not usually the case. I think that the justices, you know, I can't say for certain, but my hunch is that they often have to go in with a pretty good idea, but I think for the most part, they do ask questions, not just Not just to be heard or not just to make arguments, but because they want to really engage with the arguments that the lawyers are making in the forward to this collection, Justice Kegan first of all, very happy that she agreed to write this beautiful forward, But she she says that she says just that, you know, Dad would ask these questions because he loved argument and kind of loved mixing it up. It wasn't just kind of wasn't just for show though he did. I think you're right. He was very kind of an engaging speaker and There was some study years ago that that found he was. He was the funniest justice by the standards of he drew the most laughter from the courtroom during oral arguments, which obviously isn't the most important thing to do, but just shows how much he he enjoyed that process that love for debate. Did it? Was it a two way street was? Was he persuadable? Absolutely. That's something justice Kagan mentions in her forward. She doesn't say when she ever changed his mind, but says They change each other's minds at times. Well, Christopher Scalia, It was great to talk, Teo, The book is called The Essential Scalia on the Constitution, the courts and the rule of law. Chris Scalia. Really good to talk to you. Thanks so much, Thanks so much appreciate your time.
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell
How should the media cover the presidential race in the Trump era?
"Rid of the ballots. Locker up has now morphed into get rid of the ballots. And that's become an effect. The trump campaign slogan and the trump campaign strategy. It became the strategy yesterday when Donald Trump said that. And get rid of the ballots are the first words of a New York Daily News op Ed piece today with the headline. The president is psychopath the new. York daily. News is one hundred and one years old, which makes it New York City's youngest circulating daily newspaper. And it carries a headline in twenty twenty. That was unthinkable. When the daily news was founded in one thousand, nine hundred nineteen. President is a psychopath. The article is written by two psychologists and it says get rid of the ballots and there won't be a transfers said Donald Trump on Wednesday. This comment is a direct dangerous expression of his anti-democratic intention. If unstopped trump may well destroy our two, hundred, forty, four year, old democracy, it is time to stop pulling punches. It is time to stop relying on political pundits to weigh in on trump's behavior, which they often softened and even normalized. We are psychologists and we are convinced Donald trump is a psychopath his malignant behavior over the past four years is growing escalating right before our eyes trump's psychopathy will change us forever if he is not stopped. And today the New York. Times. Published up ed piece by the newspapers distinguished columnist Michelle Goldberg which says the President Quote Daily defiles his office with. Corruption disloyalty and Sater's. The president of the United. States is aspiring fascist who would burn democracy to the ground to solve his diseased he go. Michelle Goldberg. In New York Times print. Refers to. The rotten and squalid party that is enabling him. These are all words that could not in did not appear in the New York Times about American presidents and now fit. Well within the bounds, the contours of mainstream comment about this president. The New York Times. Is One hundred, sixty, nine years old. And it's had to find new language to deal with Donald. Trump because donald trump has brought new language to the presidency like get rid of the ballots. The. New York Post. Is Two hundred nineteen years old the oldest New York City newspaper was founded by Alexander Hamilton but it is now owned and operated by an Australian born billionaire who liked donald trump got his start in life from his rich father. And history will show Rupert Murdoch's most significant contribution. To his adopted country. Has Been. The perversion. Of Television news into a presidential propaganda channeled named after the animal in the forest that legend has it is the most cunning and to put it mildly untrustworthy. Fox.
People of the Pod
Remembering Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"Epic luck is a professor of law and the Founding Faculty Director of the Solomon Center for Health, Law and policy at Yale Law school she is an expert on Congress and the political process federalism civil procedure and health law among her most recent work is the most extensive empirical study ever conducted about the realities of the congressional lawmaking process published as two articles. In the Stanford Law review she has worked for. A Mayor Governor and senator, but she's here today because she also worked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg she and fellow former clerk Jillian. Metzger wrote a piece in the new. York. Times just days after Justice GINSBURG staff recalling her impact on them and on equality for men and women in America professor. Thank you for joining us and before we begin our deepest condolences to the loss of your mentor and friend. Thank you so much. It's really a loss for all of us. Yes. Well, I believe you were at the all night vigil last night for Justice Ginsburg I'm hoping you can kind of take us there and describe that experience. Sure. So many people saw on television yesterday the law clerk stood outside to receive the justices casket, which is a typical tradition, but was very striking. I think yesterday because we covered the plaza, an perse because there are so many of us. But second because you were social distancing for covid. So created quite a striking visual I'd ask her ceremony. There is a tradition that other justices have observed where there's an honor guard that guards the casket for the entire time at lays in the court and law clerks at the sign of honor to their boss. Often stand is shifts next to the casket what we did yesterday and are still doing until tomorrow morning actually for the full forty, eight hours, the casket is. The court is that we have two law clerks that are standing by her side every single minute from the time she got to the court through the night. So I was there last night at midnight that another shift at one forty in the morning it's not unique as you know in the Jewish tradition, there is that tradition of standing by the side of the body for burial and several people have asked me wells is happening because she's a Jewish justice. This part of the Jewish tradition at it's a happy coincidence. It's not just for her as happened before, but I was very meaningful I think and really special way to honor her well. Let's talk about just the Ginsberg's impact on you. What did you learn as her clerk started in July two thousand three, right? Yes. Can you talk about your time as for Clark but also impact on you going forward from that time I mean I think her impact on anyone Shane. Countered is really immeasurable as a law clerk for her her work ethic is renowned. She worked harder than anyone I just did another interview with someone else who's I? Well, very supreme court advocate who mentioned that you know nobody prepared more than Justice Ginsburg even the lawyers who are preparing their cases or less prepared than she was on as her law clerk, you could not out prepare her so was she taught us aw was this work ethic and the idea of Being incredibly careful. So you can stand behind your work, one, hundred percent she instilled that in us an enormous way, the other things that she instilled with us during the clerkship or some of her signature qualities. So she was remarkably collegial in the sense that she could disagree and dissent without throwing sharp elbows or causing fights and remaining friendly and close with her colleague. She's obviously the independent thinker. She also had just an amazing life outside the court she basically filled her. Entire. Day She would work until eight pm she would go to the opera than she will come back and work more and she sort of showed you how to have this incredibly full life where you could work hard and you know she wouldn't use your play hard but you know fill your life with all the things you love and every aspect and the last thing say about my time there that her relationship with her husband was as I said before one. For the ages and you could not work for her without seeing that relationship would have birthday parties for every law clerk in her office at her husband. Marty would big cake they were such equal partners. He was her biggest booster her stories through the ages were all about how they supported one another different times in their career. It was really an amazing experience for young person. I was newly married at the time to see that kind of marriage and learn from it. So did she maintain a relationship with her clerks after their terms the court we're up? Oh, absolutely. It was sort of remarkable and a Guy John Stronger and deeper and deeper. Every year I would say that with every passing year I felt closer and closer and closer to her, which is just