35 Burst results for "Justice Gorsuch"

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:36 min | Last month

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Branch. Now, that constitutional doctrine is suspect and people thought it was long dead up until a few years ago. When justice Gorsuch and other members of the court appeared to want to revive it. And so justice Gorsuch's concurrence, again, underscores that this non delegation doctrine is back. And there might be a future case in which the court actually relies on it to say a statute passed by Congress, not just a regulation as in this case, but a statute passed by Congress is unconstitutional because it gives too much authority to the executive branch. Thanks to UCLA, law professor Blake Emerson. Coming up, we'll get a comprehensive view of the economy from Ed Hyman of Evercore. That's next, you're listening to balance of power on Bloomberg radio. This is Bloomberg. Businesses evolve. The legal fallout over the supply chain crisis. Society evolves. The justices haven't second guessed vaccine requirements. Law evolves. We were talking about appeals of these lower court decisions. Follow the evolution here. Asking the 6th circuit to send it to another circuit, it seems to me like a fool's errand. Bloomberg law with June grosso. On Bloomberg radio, the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg radio dot com. Burden LLP accountants and advisers presents industry chat, who with Jeff Kovacs, partner and head of the technology and life sciences practice. Early to mid stage technology companies often ask what is my company worth? While valuing companies at these stages is often

justice Gorsuch Gorsuch Bloomberg Blake Emerson Ed Hyman Evercore Congress UCLA Burden LLP Jeff Kovacs
Supreme Court Justice Slams President Wilson's Legacy

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:14 min | Last month

Supreme Court Justice Slams President Wilson's Legacy

"Over in the Gorsuch concurrence on page four, he writes about, from time to time, some people have questioned the assertion that the framers believed the republic would be more likely to enact just laws than a regime administered by a ruling class of largely unaccountable ministers. Justice Gorsuch drops footnote one in the Gorsuch concern. It might be famous footnote one. For example, Woodrow Wilson famously argued that quote popular sovereignty embarrassed the nation because it made it harder to achieve executive expertise. In Wilson's eyes, the mass of the people were selfish ignorant timid stupid stubborn or foolish. He expressed even greater disdain for particular groups. Defending the white men of the south, for ridding themselves by fair means or foul of the intolerable burden of government sustained by the votes of ignorant African Americans. And that's in brah and blacks. Woodrow Wilson really despised black people. I hope you know that. Wilson likewise denounce this is gorgeous again. Wilson likewise denounced immigrants from the south of Italy and men of the meanest sort out of Hungary and Poland, who possessed neither skill nor energy nor any initiative of quick intelligence.

Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch Woodrow Wilson Wilson Italy Hungary Poland
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:04 min | Last month

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Yes, so first of all, I think justice Gorsuch is in fact correct that there are there's a constitutional logic underlining the major questions doctrine and that's the non delegation doctrine. The idea here is that Congress can not delegate its legislative power to the executive branch. Now, that constitutional doctrine is suspect and people thought it was long dead up until a few years ago. When justice Gorsuch and other members of the court appeared to want to revive it. And so justice Gorsuch's concurrence, again, underscores that this non delegation doctrine is back. And there might be a future case in which the court actually relies on it to say a statute passed by Congress, not just a regulation as in this case, but a statute passed by Congress is unconstitutional because it gives too much authority to the executive branch. Now, even leaving that aside, the major questions ruling in the majority opinion in which Gorsuch and Alito concurred also is going to have major impacts potentially on other agencies. I mean, there are tons of regulations that are in process that might have major implications. SEC regulations about climate related disclosures. We have regulations coming out about the sale of guns. So we have ghost guns that can't be easily traced. And because the major questions doctrine is so broad because it as justice Roberts said in this case, the major question is doctrine comes up whenever it makes a judge raise an eyebrow. So if you look at all these regulations, a judge either at the Supreme Court or in an appellate court or even in a district court might raise their eyebrow at, say, the ATF's ability to regulate firearms and decide that it's out, simply because it seems like it's too broad and exercise of authority. And to my mind, that's pretty dangerous. Yeah, it's fascinating. It's really helpful analysis from you. Thank you, professor. Professor Blake Emerson of the UCLA law school. Coming up, senator pat toomey

justice Gorsuch Gorsuch Congress Alito justice Roberts SEC ATF Supreme Court Professor Blake Emerson UCLA law school senator pat toomey
Article III Project's Mike Davis on the Transformation of SCOTUS

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:55 min | Last month

Article III Project's Mike Davis on the Transformation of SCOTUS

"With us right now is Mike Davis formerly chief counsel for nominations for the U.S. Senate committee on the judiciary and a law clerk formerly and also helped justice Gorsuch, get on the U.S. Supreme Court, Mike, welcome back to the program. Thank you for having me, Charlie. I always love when you do our interviews, you have that beautiful picture behind you. It's just, it's incredible. So Washington crossing the Delaware if I'm not mistaken. It is, yeah, and I've big, big, big admirer of that painting and what it actually means. So Mike ten years ago, I got my start in politics and I was pro life then as I am now, but I was told by people that roe versus wade would never be overturned. Ten years ago, justice Scalia was lamenting that the court had gone off the rails. What happened in a decade, where we went from a court that was insane and dominated by Sotomayor and Kagan and upheld ObamaCare is merely a tax, even though we know simply that that was an insane decision. We're ten years later, we now have restored constitutional sanity. What do you attribute the success to? I attributed this success to president Donald J Trump and Senate Republicans. President Trump in 2016 won an upset victory against Hillary Clinton in big part because he promised he would appoint constitutionalist Supreme Court Justices and federal judges who would follow the law instead of rewrite the law and what we saw with this Dobbs decision coming out was the culmination of that. It was because president Trump transformed the 5 to four John Roberts court to the 5 to four clarence Thomas court with the appointments of justices, Gorsuch, my former boss, justice Kavanaugh, who I helped lead through the Senate confirmation and then justice Amy Coney Barrett. So it is a fundamental transformation of the federal judiciary back to its constitutionalist origins, what is supposed to be before the liberals hijack the Supreme Court nearly 90 years

Gorsuch U.S. Senate Committee On The J Mike Davis Mike U.S. Supreme Court President Donald J Trump President Trump Scalia Charlie Delaware Sotomayor Kagan Wade Washington Senate Hillary Clinton Justice Kavanaugh Dobbs
'Created Equal' Author Mark Paoletta Reacts to SCOTUS Overturning Roe

America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast

01:31 min | Last month

'Created Equal' Author Mark Paoletta Reacts to SCOTUS Overturning Roe

"But Mark talked to us about last week. As you said, sep, a great day for the constitution. I can't stop smiling, right? It's such a wonderful, such a wonderful thing that happened, right? And there's so many on so many levels. One of them being that the left through everything at these justice is in the most despicable way possible, right? And one of the I worked on justice Thomas's confirmation back in 1991, right? And I saw it when I reviewed his speeches in an article from his time as the EEOC. He'd been through the fire and he never wilted. He never bent, right? And so to see whether you never know how a justice is going to be until they're on the court in under fire. And it's such a great day that justice Barrett justice Gorsuch justice Kavanaugh, justice Alito, and justice Thomas, did not bend, right? And that's one of the most important things coming out of this opinion. Returning it to the states where it properly belongs. And then this intimidation. And you know, when you going back to the book and the movie, justice Thomas recognized, during those confirmation hearings, all the left cared about was this decision. This is what they were going to destroy him on. So the roe V wade was the neuralgic point for the left. 100% and he goes back to it over and over. He said, they didn't care what I did with my life. They didn't care about anything I had done. They wanted this issue, and they were going to destroy me to keep this issue.

Barrett Justice Gorsuch Justice Alito Eeoc Thomas Kavanaugh Mark Justice Thomas Roe V Wade
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

03:31 min | 2 months ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Roberts and justice Brett Kavanaugh are the only justices to be in the majority in all 100 cases Again though and people who are profiling that Texas abortion case may be scratching their heads because I think many people would see chief justice Roberts concurrence in that opinion as really a dissent And so you know again that highlights the information that we can glean from this But I think that these kind of numbers that we're looking at now are going to radically change by the end of the term and just this couple of month ban because we are getting so many divisive cases and I suspect that the numbers will probably prove you right June to show that chief justice Roberts was no longer in the middle of the court And then the court has really tilted towards his more conservative colleague There isn't really a swing vote anymore like justice Kennedy was Is there I think it depends on the issue that you're talking about with justice Kennedy you know you really didn't know all the time which side of the issue in any particular case he was going to be on there were certain issues You could say yes I'll be on this side or on the other side With this court I think that there are a few really precise issues that you can see a swing justice And so it may surprise listeners that justice Gorsuch is often a vote with his more liberal colleagues on things like tribal rights or even rights for Puerto Ricans and other U.S. territories But we're not going to see justice for stitch kind of as a swing vote in these big divisive cases like guns and abortion I think you're right June That just doesn't really exist on the current Supreme Court anymore Kimberly justice Stephen Breyer's retiring after nearly 30 years on the bench Did you see anything different from him this term and are you expecting any last minute fireworks from him That is a really good question June I don't think we saw anything really different from justice Breyer this term I think you know just listening to him talk before he had announced his retirement It seemed like he had really hoped to kind of use his longtime and relationship on the bench to be able to sway the court away from some of these bigger more divisive rulings But if the draft opinion tells us anything it doesn't seem like he was successful at least with regard to abortion which is kind of the marquee issue this term So you know as far as the fireworks we can get from him I think it will be more along the lines of a sharp descent or pointing out long-term projects kind of making Alaska effort for it We saw him recently do this with the death penalty calling on the justices to reconsider the constitutionality of that But there's just not the votes on the court So there's very limited amount that justice Breyer can do as he's kind of making his farewell tour Before I let you go I want to talk a little about the leak What's the latest on the investigation by the Supreme Court Marshals office Well you know we have heard some more leaking from the leaf that the marshal's office is taking particular step to get personal phone records from the clerks and we have Bloomberg have been able to independently verify that but that's definitely something that signals kind of a unique and stark change from the atmosphere at the court before typically this is a very friendly institution and to see the marshal's office requesting the personal information of their clerks is something pretty jarring Thanks Kimberly That's Bloomberg laws Kimberly strawbridge Robinson Coming up a major defeat for special counsel John Durham This is Bloomberg Why.

justice Roberts justice Brett Kavanaugh Gorsuch Kimberly justice Stephen Breye justice Kennedy justice Breyer Roberts Texas Kennedy Supreme Court Puerto U.S. marshal's office Breyer Alaska Bloomberg Kimberly strawbridge Robinson Kimberly John Durham
Mike Davis Explains Just How Huge This SCOTUS Breach of Protocol Is

The Charlie Kirk Show

02:14 min | 3 months ago

Mike Davis Explains Just How Huge This SCOTUS Breach of Protocol Is

"Yesterday, we were diving into how the United States Supreme Court has suffered, I guess is the best word to use. And unprecedented leak from who we do not know, we think we know, but the person who is best able to describe this and articulate it is the head of a wonderful organization called the article three project that's article number three project dot org. And it is the terrific Mike Davis Mike. Welcome back to the program. Thank you for having me back on Charlie. So Mike, how are we supposed to make of this? The U.S. Supreme Court is leaking decisions before they happen. First of all, who could potentially do something like this, do we know who probably did this? And if so, what is the proper course of action to hold that person accountable? So I clerked for justice Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and I also served as the chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee and my part of my portfolio was oversight over the federal judiciary. I have never heard anything like what happens with this leak. I don't think it's ever happens that a draft majority opinion for a Supreme Court case has leaked out prior to the court issuing the opinion, especially in a case this monumental. This is the Dobbs case where it looks like the at least 5, maybe 6 justices on the Supreme Court are going to overturn roe versus wade and Planned Parenthood Planned Parenthood versus Casey and return abortion regulations back to the states where it belongs. This is a stunning breach of protocol. Each of the 9 Supreme Court Justices have four law clerks, each of them have generally two to three administrative aids. It is a very small universe of people who have access to these draft opinions and these opinions have to circulate among the justices because they have to work together. They have to collaborate in order to draft majority opinions dissenting opinions and concurring opinions. And if you shatter that trust, if you shatter that secrecy that confidence in the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court can no longer function.

U.S. Supreme Court Mike Davis Mike Justice Gorsuch Senate Judiciary Committee Charlie United States Mike Dobbs Wade Casey Aids
Unpacking 'The Supreme Leak' and the End of Roe

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:28 min | 3 months ago

Unpacking 'The Supreme Leak' and the End of Roe

"Reported that the Supreme Court was poised to decide that roe versus wade was going to be overturned. Now this is an unprecedented development because Politico received a leak. Now we're used to leaks in Washington, D.C., leaks happen all the time in leakers are rarely ever held accountable unless the leakers of course are leaking on Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. And so what appears to be a Supreme Court Justice clerk will get into that later in this program of who we think it is. They leaked a draft of the decision composed and written by Samuel Alito by justice Alito. Now the significance of this is, is that the decision is not done yet, is that the justices meet right after they hear oral arguments, they start to draft opinions, and the final decision, the final vote will be done based on how the opinion is written. And so based on the draft that looks like Amy Coney Barrett, clarence Thomas, justice Gorsuch, justice Alito, and justice Kavanaugh, 5 of them are going to vote against the four would be briar Sotomayor Kagan and Roberts saying that roe versus wade will be overturned. Now mind you. We'll get into the technical aspect of this. Does not mean that abortion will be outlawed as much as I'd like to see that happen. That just, it's simply means that states will be able to determine their own abortion laws. It will

Washington, D.C. Samuel Alito Supreme Court Wade Politico Amy Coney Barrett Hillary Clinton Justice Gorsuch Barack Obama Justice Kavanaugh Sotomayor Kagan Clarence Thomas Alito ROE Roberts
Who Is Moderate and Who Is Partisan on the Supreme Court

Mark Levin

01:08 min | 4 months ago

Who Is Moderate and Who Is Partisan on the Supreme Court

"To give you an idea the ones most likely in order to vote with the majority Kavanaugh then Roberts Coney Barrett those end up being what appear to be the moderates right They go along to get along Then you get into Gorsuch 63% of the time Breyer 61% Okay so the net net of it is this And I'll spare you the details We have in terms of overall decisions when they're broken out ideologically Kavanaugh Roberts and Barrett the very much look like moderates that are right of center Then you have for partisan justices Gorsuch Breyer Kagan and Alito Then you have two highly partisan justices so do more Sotomayor and Thomas And basically those two are equal on opposite ends of the spectrum But what you're doing is now taking a justice that is about 12% more conservative than the most liberal justice on the court replacing with somebody who is far to the left of the most liberal justice So yes you will see the Supreme Court moved to the left when KB J takes

Roberts Coney Barrett Gorsuch Kavanaugh Roberts Kavanaugh Gorsuch Breyer Kagan Breyer Barrett Alito Sotomayor Thomas Supreme Court
Ketanji Brown Jackson on How She Approaches the Constitution

Mark Levin

01:25 min | 5 months ago

Ketanji Brown Jackson on How She Approaches the Constitution

"We had this hearing today with a brown Jackson Brown Jackson And some of the things she said were utterly preposterous She was the most radical among the candidates and the small group of candidates that Biden looked at Had to be a woman had to be black and I think had to be on a court That's a small group And here's what she said in her confirmation today about the way she approaches the constitution cut to go So if it is a statute for example or a provision of the constitution I'm looking at the text The adherence to text is a constraint on my authority I'm trying to figure out what those words mean as they were intended by the people who wrote them Ladies and gentlemen that's called originalism Which is embraced and promoted and used by justices like clarence Thomas and Sam Alito the late justice Scalia rehnquist justice Gorsuch now you know full well that's not what she does

Jackson Brown Jackson Biden Sam Alito Scalia Rehnquist Clarence Thomas Gorsuch
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

04:14 min | 7 months ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Perfect perfect for public He thinks very little Of coronavirus precautions Gorsuch has the nerve to refuse to wear a mask indoors while seated next to his colleague who's vulnerable to possible death from a highly communicable disease Where's the collegiality Where's the common sense That just seems ridiculous Can you put a mask on to be The light What kind of workplace is this It's not hard Justice Gorsuch had to know that this would become a public controversy And so I think he did this as a branding opportunity What's up with justice Gorsuch If all of the other including all of the other conservative members of the court are willing to go along with this why not him Every other just is masking up People clarence Thomas Who doesn't seem to care about anybody But nope Not worth it She could not be bothered to extend the lifesaving courtesy to his coworker It not only displays a lack of basic civility as a coworker but also a lack of humanity Coco coco pennell coco pennell from screw tube Are you on that Are those clips running anywhere on YouTube I'm just wondering I mean you have a policy against misinformation right This information about masks Jim good question right Fair quid They have a mask disinformation That's clear disinformation Gorsuch Sotomayor and John Roberts the chief justice of all put out statements suggesting and saying that the story is totally made up Coco pinell from YouTube is that banned from you of course it's not Of course it's not They're coco pennells all in on propaganda because you know their communists over at YouTube and protecting their leftist communist friends That's what they do And that's why day by day minute by minute more and more people are migrating over to rumble It's not a coincidence I have 2 million 50,000 subscribers on rumble and after 7 wat years on YouTube 6 years I don't know how long We only had 800,000 And that's why I dare you to all the time telling you I will be posting a video YouTube On Monday when I don't know when the suspension ends Saying the exact same thing And I'm just telling you just wiped the account out You're not costing me anything You're not if anything I don't think you have any idea on the financial side what you're actually doing if you did you would have learned your lesson a little while ago You haven't figured it out You'll figure it out eventually It's a little too late Sometimes This is the makings of a conspiracy theory This is what the left does The story is made up and the reason they're pushing to have so called misinformation and disinformation channels meaning conservatives wiped out is quite simply because they don't like being embarrassed in their embarrassed every day because everything they're telling you is fake There's no voter suppression of minorities that's made up There's no bull Connor in the United States Senate No tax cuts and not work No Biden hasn't done a damn thing about inflation It's all made up Masks have not stopped this pandemic Masked of not worked in stopping the transmission of this disease Please stop the insanity But it doesn't matter Any of your breaking look Jim on Fox right now NPR stands by its report and the Supreme Court mastery Unreal folks unreal Everyone involved is said the story's fake and NPR's like no no it's real it's real I mean imagine this A conspiracy theory is damn Geno's real name is Tommy bag of donuts and he's been faking it He's my birthday but no snorri's real Tobi bag of donuts someone told me a source Okay what abs guys But I was keeping up These aren't looking for Of course they're not the judge you're looking for Except they don't have the Jedi powers like Obi-Wan Jim likes Jim's a big Star Wars guy although he has ridiculous opinions on what the best Star Wars made that are laughable They're laughable He should be terminated immediately Just don't get the vaccine They'll fire you Jim There you go I'll take care of it Don't worry buddy If you want to give us a call and join the show 8 four four four 8 four three 8 7 two 8 four four four 8 four three 8 7 two will.

YouTube Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch justice Gorsuch Coco coco pennell coco pennell Jim good Gorsuch Sotomayor Coco pinell communicable disease clarence Thomas John Roberts snorri Connor Biden Jim Senate NPR Geno Wan Jim
NPR Stands by Report as Three SCOTUS Justices Refute Gorsuch-Sotomayor Feud

Mike Gallagher Podcast

01:22 min | 7 months ago

NPR Stands by Report as Three SCOTUS Justices Refute Gorsuch-Sotomayor Feud

"Do you see how NPR lied about the Supreme Court? NPR's Nina totenberg reported that justice Sotomayor is having to be forced to work remotely all because of the stubbornness of justice Gorsuch. Sotomayor, according to the report, has asked Gorsuch to put his mask on as the Supreme Court is in session. He is reportedly refusing forcing the. Immunocompromised Sonia Sotomayor to work from home. That's according to NPR. Turns out, they're all denied. All of the parties involved said it's absolutely false. It's a blatant lie. So to my or denied it, Gorsuch dyed it, denied it, they're all denying it. They're saying it isn't true. What an NPR do? Double down. They stand by their reporter, because after all, Nina totenberg has been around for a hundred years and she wouldn't make something like that up. Another reason to hate the mainstream media and to despise the fact that you and I help fund

Gorsuch NPR Nina Totenberg Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court Sotomayor
Justice Neil Gorsuch: Biden Admin Has Been Going 'Agency to Agency' to Enact Vaccine Mandate

Mark Levin

01:54 min | 7 months ago

Justice Neil Gorsuch: Biden Admin Has Been Going 'Agency to Agency' to Enact Vaccine Mandate

"Noel Gorsuch justice Gorsuch at the oral argument cut 9 go Now you are you we should not consider the major questions doctrine unless and until we find a statutory ambiguity I understand that But let's say the court does find such an ambiguity I know you'll contest the premise but let's just work on it If there is an ambiguity why isn't this a major question that therefore belongs to the people's representatives of the states and in the halls of Congress Given that the statute at issue here is as the chief justice pointed out 50 years old doesn't address this question the rule effects I believe we're told 80 million people and the government reserves the right to extend it to every private business in the country Traditionally states have had the responsibility for overseeing vaccination mandates I rejected a challenge to one just the other day from New Mexico Congress has had a year to act on the question of vaccine mandates already As the chief justice points out it appears that the federal government is going agency by agency as a workaround to its inability to get Congress to act The risks imposed here are not unilateral There are risks to those who choose not to be vaccinated that they're trying to avoid sometimes as you discuss with justice Alito and conceded to him Traditionally osha has had rules that affect workplace hazards their unique to the workplace and don't involve hazards that affect individuals 24 hours a day No so what So what To policy decision don't you see It's a policy decision

Noel Gorsuch Gorsuch Congress New Mexico Federal Government Alito Osha
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to New York Vaccine Mandate

The Hugh Hewitt Show: Highly Concentrated

01:56 min | 8 months ago

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to New York Vaccine Mandate

"Court yesterday denied the right of 20 healthcare workers in New York to do phi defy the states mandate for healthcare workers. And these 20 workers said where Catholic, we can't take the vaccine because it's related to. Vaccines developed by stem cell research on unborn babies. In fact, they did not present as Catholic organizations and they did not actually reflect Catholic doctrine which has no problem. None at all, the Vatican has ruled, take the vaccine, and the court declined to issue exemption to these 20 disparate individuals. Justice Gorsuch descent, justice Elena joined the descent, what a great search, justice. Thomas would have granted cert. Some people have, I believe, erroneously read this as a hostility to religious liberty. I don't read that as a hostility to religious liberty. I read that too. We're not going to let random 20 people come in and claim that they're the Catholic Church exercising doctrine because it's not against people having individuals in idiosyncratic religious beliefs. It's just that we can empower everyone to have their own religious doctrine and say you've got to pay attention to us. Sincerely, how religious belief is part of the test and then who else has it? How long has it been around and how long have you held this belief in the case of these cells are based on prohibited abortion dependent research? It's simply not true. The people who are most concerned with that have said, it's not true. That would be the Vatican and American bishops and therefore the court declined to go forward. Those who are throwing up their hands and worried about this, I tell you this is the best religious liberty court we have ever had. It will get better and ABC is not going to miss her shot. When it comes up, but they're not going to get dragged into a premature firing of that shot.

Justice Gorsuch Vatican Elena New York Thomas Catholic Church Vatican And American Bishops ABC
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Today, Explained

Today, Explained

04:22 min | 10 months ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Today, Explained

"Protecting them from discrimination by their employers. Justice Gorsuch says that he's a textualist, which means that you look at the words the law. You try to figure out what they meant when they were drafted. And that's it. That's all you're supposed to do as a judge. And Gorsuch, I think, wrote a good opinion in bostock. So good for him. You know, I mean, I don't see any reason to doubt what most of the justice are saying when they are saying that they are making decisions because they have a certain ideological view of certain judicial philosophy and not because they are just partisan hacks. You want the Republican Party to win in every single case. I think for almost all the justice that is probably right, they are not partisan hacks. They also didn't overturn the 2020 election, right? There's that. There is that, although Trump's arguments for overturning the 2020 election were so clownish that, like, you know, if law matters at all in the United States. I guess the way that I think about it is this. There are certainly legal arguments that are completely off the wall. Like if you make them, you'll be laughed out of court. And then there are certain legal arguments that fit within like the range of plausible arguments. And historically what normally happens is that conservative justices when confronted with an argument that is within that range of plausible arguments, will tend to pick the most conservative plausible argument and liberals will tend to pick the most liberal plausible argument. The problem is that the law is built unprecedent. As the courts decide cases, the range of plausible arguments shift. And so if you have a court that is consistently handing down conservative decisions, then over time, the range of plausible arguments will inexorably move to the right, until eventually arguments that were ridiculous. Ten years ago will suddenly become very plausible. And so when Trump was trying to say, hey, let's overturn the 2020 election. He was making ridiculous arguments, but also the court hadn't done the work of marching the wall to the right over the course of a decade or more. So that Trump would have a plausible argument that he could have made to overturn the 2020 election. Is there an example of having a more conservative court leading to a different way of doing business on the court? Well, I mean, I think the SB 8 case that we were discussing before the break is the quintessential example of that. Again, the idea that the court would allow a state to write a law whose purpose is to evade judicial review. And in doing so, get around what is long been understood to be a constitutional right. I mean, if you had asked me if the court would have allowed that 6 months ago. I would say no, that is too far. And I would have been wrong. The other thing to bear in mind about the SB 8 case is that it arose on the court's so called shadow docket. The shadow docket refers to asking the court to rule very, very quickly on cases that in the past they would normally give it a lot of time to percolate in the lower courts before they stepped in. And I think that the fact that the court is trying to move so quickly is a sign of the court's impatience. The reason why the justices normally like to wet cases spend a lot of time cooking before they rule. They want a lot of lower court judges to weigh in first. They want to have full briefing and oral argument before they weighed in. Is because the Supreme Court has the final work, and when you have the final word if you act too quickly, you can get the answer wrong. And then that wrong answer is going to linger because there's no one who can overrule you. And so historically, the Supreme Court was very, very cautious about getting things wrong. And wanted to take a lot of time to think about things. I think.

Justice Gorsuch Gorsuch Trump bostock Republican Party United States Supreme Court
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:24 min | 1 year ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"Of things like grocery shopping, or what have you let's discuss the four separate opinion. So the most supportive of religion the most to the right, perhaps would be the opinion by justice score such Joined by Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. So what? Just highlight what that opinion was about. Yeah, it's interesting that in today's category that supposed we're calling those opinions that one of their own right But the method of analysis that those justices are applying. It's one that we can trace the kind of the court's liberals in the sixties. You know people like Justice William Brennan, where you know justice, spreading, insisted that when the government is regulating religious conduct, we're not just going to defer toe regulator statements that piece right? Relations are a good idea. We want evidence. We want actual demonstration that these regulations are nests to promote a compelling interest. And that was the case that justice Gorsuch joined by some others that you said wanted to lay out. He concluded on the basis of the record that we have that California was asking for too much deference that it was asking just for a rubber stamp and that when you're talking about fundamental rights government have toe provide more evidence. And his view, although obviously he's not epidemiologist, and he conceded too much. Of course, his view was that California appears to be much more strict with gatherings of a religious nature and much less flexible with gatherings of a religious nature than it is with other times. So he points out, for example, Look, if what the experts are worried about his Meaning which can spread the droplets and put people at risk for covert. Well, you could have a reception that said, Welcome. You can't have singing into your worship, but they didn't do that. They just prohibited all indoor worship. You could imagine us. Of course, it said, a restriction that you know no more than X number of people or Have to be social distancing or masking or plexiglass shields or what have you but I think attracted justice Gorsuch. His concern was that the regulations on these indoor religious gatherings seemed so sweeping and absolute. And he says that that can't be justified on this record coming up. Which direction is the court going in on religious rights? This is Limburg when thought leaders For McDonald, Cbu and Davis. Alan Advertising. This is aroma $2.6 piece, Vic Nugget. 32nd radio Idea. Number M c L Q 8473 to 0 R. Hey, we haven't even pulled away from the drive thru, and you're already digging.

justice Gorsuch Justice William Brennan California Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito Limburg Alan Advertising Vic Nugget. McDonald Cbu Davis
Computer Crime Law Scrutinized at Supreme Court

Techmeme Ride Home

03:28 min | 1 year ago

Computer Crime Law Scrutinized at Supreme Court

"Finally today there was an interesting tech related case that was argued before the. Us supreme court yesterday it involves a nineteen eighty-six computer crime law that has been used ever since to prosecute hackers and internet activist than the like people have been arguing strenuously that the law is outdated and indeed as justice gorsuch said in yesterday's court hearing the us government's interpretation of the law risks quote making a federal criminal of us all and quote. And yes if you're wondering this is indeed the so called. Aaron swartz law quoting politico. The supreme court on monday indicated serious reservations about the ambiguity and scope of the nation's only major cybercrime law hinting. It may narrow the law's applicability to avoid criminalising acts such as checking social media at work during arguments in a case involving a georgia police officer convicted of violating the nineteen eighty-six computer fraud and abuse act by accessing a license plate database. The justices pushed a justice department. Lawyer to explain how a ruling in the government's favour wouldn't open the door to prosecutions of innocuous behavior those could include browsing instagram on computer or performing public-spirited security research to test a system for vulnerabilities as the first see. Faa challenge to reach the high court. The van buren case generated amicus briefs from a wide range of technology privacy and cyber security experts. Most of them on van buren side a group of cybersecurity. Experts described the faa a sword hanging over the head of researchers who probe computers for weaknesses with the goal of helping their owners fix the flaws. The most controversial ever see faa case never reached a verdict. In two thousand eleven federal prosecutors indicted the prominent internet freedom activists aaron sorts on hacking charges for downloading millions of journal articles using a subscription provided by mit swertz. Then twenty four face thirty five years in prison. He by suicide in january twenty thirteen while awaiting trial. The justices sounded alarm. Monday about the broader reading of the cfe. A justice neal gorsuch suggested that the van buren case was the latest example of the government. Trying to broaden the scope of criminal laws incontestable ways several justices expressed uncertainty about the definitions of key terms in the law such as authorization and they spent a significant amount of time asking both lawyers about the meaning of the word so in one part of the statute quote. What is this statute talking about. When it speaks of information in the computer justice samuel alito asked finding in at one point. All information that somebody obtains on the web is in the computer in a sense. I have a feeling. That's not what congress was thinking about when adopted this law. I don't really understand the potential scope of the statute without having an idea about exactly what all those terms mean li added. The justices also sought more clarity about the consequences. That fisher argued would result from abroad. Reading of the faa alina. Ask fisher to explain how the would criminalize one of his example scenarios. Wait on dating website. Fisher responded that by receiving interested messages from potential romantic partners based on falsified. Wait the user would be obtaining information from a computer in violation of the websites terms of service and also thus these cf a similarly fisher told justice elena kagan checking instagram at work constituted obtaining words and pictures from ones instagram feed and if a company prohibited social media browsing on computers obtaining that information would also violate the cf a bike contravening the employers policy and quote

FAA Gorsuch Van Buren Supreme Court Aaron Swartz Justice Neal Gorsuch Us Government Justice Department Government Georgia MIT Aaron Samuel Alito Fisher Alina LI Congress Instagram
Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

Mark and Melynda

07:08 min | 1 year ago

Amy Coney Barret Tilts The Balance in Divisive Ruling

"A lot for being with us on this day after Thanksgiving. It was right before Thanksgiving late Wednesday. When the U. S Supreme Court The majority said, even in a pandemic You can't put away the Constitution. Now. In New York governor Cuomo says that he issued these restrictions on places of worship. Based on science. And safety. And so this is a fascinating ruling. In many regards number one. It's a big plus for religious freedom. Number two. It was just this past summer. That the Supreme Court ruled basically the opposite. In a case and there's some other cases that are being considered. I believe some cases California, New Jersey, Louisiana, So this is all about the Supreme Court blocking New York's governor from enforcing 10 and 25 person occupancy limits On religious institutions. Courts, the restrictions would violate religious freedom. And are not neutral because they single out houses of worship or especially harsh treatment. Or said there's no evidence that the organizations that brought the lawsuit have contributed to the spread of cove in 19. And this was one of those 54 decisions. With Chief Justice John Roberts. Going along with Justices Stephen Bryer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. And in their descent. Chief justice. Roberts said he saw no need to take this action because New York had revised the designations of the affected areas. Governor Cuomo essentially Said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did rule on it and also in the sending opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this unlike religious services, Bike repair shops and liquor stores generally don't feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more. She went on to say justices of this court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials. About the environments in which a contagious virus now infecting a million Americans each week. Spreads most easily. Those are the words and the dissenting opinion from Justice. Sonia Sotomayor, your Down the majority, and this may be the new power five and this is one of the key developments out of this ruling. A new power five on the Supreme Court. Barrett Gorsuch. Thomas Alito. And Cavanaugh. Three of whom, of course, were Appointed By President Donald Trump in the Majority opinion. Justice, Gorsuch said this, he noted that Governor Cuomo had designated among others, the hardware stores acupuncturists. Liquor stores and bicycle repair shops as essential businesses. That were not subject to the most strict limits. Like these places of worship work. Gorsuch said. We may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack. Things never go well. When we do So it Zbig deal for the Supreme Court. It's a big deal for I mean, let's face it all those evangelicals that voted for President Trump. They've got to be doing a victory lap today, right? Maybe you are a swell 51283605 90. If you'd like to be a part of the program here, you give us a call or send us a text on K. O. B. J. It is because Amy Barrett just got on the court. Right, So it's really The first significant indication Of a rightward tilt to the court. And I mentioned this and may and July Supreme Court rejected challenges. Virus related restrictions on churches in California and Nevada. At that time, the Chief Justice John Roberts, Joined the courts Democratic appointees, which of course, then included Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And those rulings they stress that state and local governments required flexibility to deal with a dangerous and evolving pandemic. So The New York Times, Right said. This is just One example of how profoundly President Trump Has transformed the Supreme Court. This New York Times P, says Justice Bharat Help the chief justice of body blow. Casting the decisive vote in a 5 to 4 ruling. On religious services in New York. And New York Times says this is most certainly a taste. Of things to come. About this 51283605 90 here on Caleb E. J. It is an interesting question, right? In the summer time. Even the Supreme Court said, Look You may not like it when these local officials are trying to close the church. But You're dealing with health and safety issue. And there are rights. Given to local officials in the event. Of health and safety issues. Well, not in this case, the governor there in New York, Andrew Cuomo. He criticized the Supreme Court. Or overturning their restrictions. He said It was Morrell Astrit Ivo of the Supreme Court than anything else. He called the ruling irrelevant. Said it would have any practical impact because restrictions Are not in place and had been dialed back well. You know, it's interesting that even in the Opinion. That was written by Sonia Sotomayor, right? When she was talking about The court plays a deadly game and second guessing the expert judgment of health official. Let's stop right there.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Gorsuch Cuomo Sonia Sotomayor New York Stephen Bryer Justice Sonia Sotomayor President Trump Barrett Gorsuch Thomas Alito Governor Cuomo Elena Kagan Zbig U. Amy Barrett California Louisiana New Jersey Cavanaugh
Supreme Court Rules New York Cannot Limit Attendance At Houses Of Worship Due To COVID-19

Here & Now

04:54 min | 1 year ago

Supreme Court Rules New York Cannot Limit Attendance At Houses Of Worship Due To COVID-19

"Some religious groups in new york are celebrating last night's rare late night. Supreme court decision blocking an executive order from new york governor andrew cuomo that restricted attendance at religious services in their neighborhoods because the pandemic ultra orthodox jewish organizations in brooklyn and queens and the roman catholic diocese of brooklyn claim. That cuomo single them out. The state pointed to the recent spike in covid nineteen cases. And then there was that alarming ultra orthodox wedding last week. The two hundreds not wearing masks. The court's decision was five. Four with its newest justice emmy coney barrett considered the fifth vote. Emily brazilan staff writer at new york times magazine and fellow at the yale law. School is here emily. Thank you for taking a break from your thanksgiving thanks. You are welcome. Glad to be here. And we should say the to litigants the ultra orthodox jewish groups and the catholic diocese were already not subject to these restrictions. Because they've been lifted there's a color system for restrictions in new york and Cova cases had obey abated in their area. But what was the argument from the court in blocking even targeted restrictions. Well the corpus arguing that new york hadn't shown that less strict measures would be enough to protect public health. Which is a pretty cursory kind of way of thinking about this. You can see the concur. Ince's by justice gorsuch as justice cavanaugh. That some of the conservative judges didn't like the idea that essential businesses which were permitted to open a new york included stores but did not include houses of worship. And i think the odd thing about the majority's analysis here is what it's comparing so the majority behaves as if people going to stores are the same as people congregating in a house of worship even though it's very unusual in store for lots of people to be sitting together or certainly singing or chanting together for a long time. That's all in a church or synagogue or a mosque and we know that that is a riskier activity. So there was no discussion of the science or scientific public health considerations in the majority's opinion. And what about chief. Justice john robertson. The three liberal justices dissenting. What did they say. Well chief justice. John roberts says there's no reason for us to decide this right now for the reason that you gave earlier new york had a lift these restrictions for now because the krona virus spread is not as bad in the city so these restrictions said that in the red zone the highest risk new york. You could have ten people in a house of worship in the orange zone. You could have twenty-five people but the catholic archdiocese in the docks synagogues that have sued. They no longer are subject to those restrictions and so she's jeff roberts was making a kind of traditional conservative judicial modesty Moved here in which he said. Look if they're subject to these restrictions again maybe they will be proved to be unduly harsh but at the moment. They're not so we don't need to step in here. And this is a classic example of a judge saying you know what. Let's leave this in the hands of public. Health officials not have judges step in to make these decisions. Unless it's absolutely necessary will be clear. What does it mean. I mean be clear. Only because i'm not able to figure this out. Temporary decision made on an emergency basis by the way when ruth bader ginsburg was on the court roberts sided with the liberals and the decision was in favor of restrictions that was when california had restrictions in place. So obviously there's been a tilt here but what does this mean for other states for new york when it comes to restrictions on houses of worship in the pandemic y- i'm kind of scratching my head about that too. I mean it looks like what the court is saying. Is that if you have businesses open you have to treat churches and other houses of worship just like those businesses but without paying attention to the greater risk that the church that you know religious service can entail and that's very strange to me because it seems so at odds with the science and what we know about the spread of coronavirus. And so you're right. This is a decision. That's a temporary restraining. Order against new york. The merits the kind of larger case is still to be thrashed out the lower courts and so one hopes going forward that there will be more attention to these apples to apples. Comparisons and figuring out what the state really needs to do to protect public health and mall many have seen the video from the acidic wedding in brooklyn this month. Hundreds packing a synagogue. No-one wearing masks mayor. Bill de blasio said or organizers will find fifteen thousand for violating restrictions. And so we're keeping an eye on that to see what happens. There might be any kind of consideration of

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Roman Catholic Diocese Of Broo Coney Barrett Emily Brazilan New York Times Magazine Catholic Diocese Justice Gorsuch Justice Cavanaugh Justice John Robertson Cuomo Jeff Roberts Ince Queens Brooklyn Supreme Court Yale Emily John Roberts Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

01:38 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"This is my third such nomination. After Justice Gorsuch and Justus Cavanaugh. And it is a very proud moment indeed. Over the past week, our nation has more on the loss of a true American legend. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a legal giant and a pioneer for women. Are extraordinary life and legacy will inspire Americans for generations to come. Now we gather in the Rose Garden to continue our never ending task. Of ensuring equal justice and preserving the impartial rule of law. Today, it is my honor to nominate one of our nation's most brilliant And gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court. She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials and unyielding loyalty to the constitution. Judge Amy Cockney Barrett. We're.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Judge Amy Cockney Barrett Justice Gorsuch Justus Cavanaugh Supreme Court Rose Garden
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:31 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"That the court has decided in fewer and fewer cases every year. Against that backdrop, each individual decisions gonna loom that much larger. What's your take? On the newest justice is Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh? Justice Gorsuch did surprise some people writing the majority opinion in the LGBT case and the tribal treaty case. I think they're very much who we expected. At least I always expected there would be a couple of idiosyncratic areas reductive Gorsuch nowhere, his principal at least superficially inconsistent with his politics. Of course, that was always true of Justice Scalia, his predecessor, and not shocking to me that either of the big cannons from the theatre were examples of that right. Title seven case was perfect paid for his formalistic textual ism and the Oklahoma case that it was very much a context in which it any justice on the right was going to be empathetic would be him. I don't think it's just anything larger about Gorsuch being some kind of unreliable conservative in every other contest with a partisan Vaillant. He was reliably on the right. I was much more surprised in the title seven caves by the chief justice join in Gorsuch's majority opinion in by the back, of course that wrote it. As we're just cabin on. I think Kavanaugh is doing what most welcome back. That was a pretty reliable vote for whatever's yours, just the conservative positions cases and the only example really of and bucking that no in its first really to terms on the court with any trust kids from last term coming up next on Bloomberg law. How covert 19 affected the court in ways you may not think, Remember, You can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg law podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I'm June but also and this is number I've always wanted to little that I know when I joined Kaiser Permanente that it would be on my top 10 list for what has made this year. Agree. I can see my position. I could be referred to the lab. I can then be referred to the pharmacy on the same building. You've got it all. I mean, it's it's quality of care. It's compassion of care. It's convenient care, Mr. Every medical cases unique as the foundation of the analytic states to wanna one Jefferson Street ruffle Maryland to zero if I do Just a few months ago, you would have thought it was science fiction. What do you think is realistic in terms of getting a vaccine, and now it's a reality. Do we invest for inflation? When it gets really When you make that cold? What's the pushback? Get the.

Justice Scalia Brett Kavanaugh Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch Bloomberg Neil Gorsuch Kaiser Permanente Oklahoma principal Maryland
Dr Fauci grilled on virus spread during protests

What's On Your Mind - Encore

01:53 min | 2 years ago

Dr Fauci grilled on virus spread during protests

"Kim Jordan questioning Dr Fauci today on Capitol Hill. Listen here now recognizes for five minutes, Mr Jordan. Thank Mr Chairman, Dr. Fell to do protest increased the spread of the virus. Protest increased the spread of the virus. I think I could make a general statement by half a 1,000,000 protesters on on June June 6th 6th when when I'm I'm just just asking asking that that number number of of people people doesn't doesn't increase increase the the spread spread of of Iraq Iraq crowding. crowding. Together, Together, particularly particularly when when you're you're not not wearing wearing a a masked masked contributes contributes to to the the spread spread of of the the virus virus should be limit. The protesting I'm not sure. What do you make should How do we say Limit the protesting your government limit. The protesting I don't think that's relevant to. Well, you just said if it increases the spread of the virus, I'm just asking should be limited. Well, I'm not in a position to determine what the government could do in a forceful way. While you make all kinds of recommendation. You make comments on dating on baseball and everything you can imagine. I'm just asking. You just said protest increased to spread. I'm just asking. Should we try to limit the project? I think I would leave that to people who have more of a position to do that. I can tell you government stopped people from going to church Doctor Falke. Yeah. Last week in the Calvary Chapel Case. Five liberals on the Supreme Court said it was okay for Nevada to limit church services. 100. I mean, justice, Gorsuch said it best, he said. There's no there's no world in which the Constitution permissive added a favor Caesar's palace over Calvary Chapel I'm just asking. Is there a world where the Constitution says you can favor one First Amendment Liberty? Protesting over another practicing your faith. I'm not favoring anybody over anybody. I'm just making a statement. That's a broad statement that avoid crowds of any type. No matter where you are, or what he wants him to say is is insane. Do not You know, stop a protest for the code crisis because you stop people going to church?

Kim Jordan Caesar Mr Chairman Calvary Chapel Case Iraq Calvary Chapel Doctor Falke Gorsuch Dr Fauci Baseball Supreme Court Dr. Fell Nevada
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

Bloomberg Radio New York

02:40 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"The federal government of the whole, basically asking the court to close their eyes back one of them. That's the darker case. I think the chief is going he has shown before he showed up in the garden. I think he will show that he is not someone who's going to be ableto sort of look path cases where the relevant after it into the acting in bad faith, and I don't know that that makes him consistently predictable, But it's a very different kind of centrism and very kind of median voter than Anthony Kennedy was There were 13 5 to 4 or 5 to 3 decisions, which is a drop from the last two years, and there were several major decisions with 7 to 2 votes. Do you think this is a blow for the independence of the judiciary? Or is that going to far you know, it's such a small data that June and 13 lower absolute number. But again, this is a court that only counted down 53 signed up for the whole terms. That's still 1/4 of what the court is. I think the reality is that This is a court that is increasingly unafraid of the shadow. And that's especially true with John Roberts comedian vote You know, as opposed to years half where both were wary about justice Kennedy and might have not wanted cases because they weren't sure where he would end up. I think now they all have a pretty good sense of where they are, and so that means that they're going to cases they think where It's clear from the outset that it's going to be five before, so I think we're probably looking at actually, ah, higher overall percentage of 5 to 4 decision in the long term. I think the real question is not to know the absolute number 54 decisions that sort of how many of them as a percentage of the court's workload which you know, you know, once again down this here, So the other trend I'm here is that the court has defied in fewer and fewer cases every year. Against that backdrop, each individual decisions gonna loom that much larger. What's your take? On the newest justice is Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh? Justice Gorsuch did surprise some people writing the majority opinion in the LGBT case and the tribal treaty case. I think they're very much who we expected. At least I always expected there would be a couple of idiosyncratic areas reductive Gorsuch nowhere, his principal at least superficially inconsistent with his politics. Of course, that was always true of death. Scalia, his predecessor, and not shocking to me that either of the big cannons from the theatre were examples of that right. Title seven case was her Capades for his formalistic textual with them, and the Oklahoma case was very much a context in which it any justice on the right was going to be empathetic would be him. I don't think it's just anything larger about Gorsuch being some kind of unreliable conservative in every other context with a partisan Vaillant. He was reliably on the right..

Anthony Kennedy Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch Scalia Neil Gorsuch Oklahoma John Roberts Brett Kavanaugh principal
The Ruling

This Land

05:04 min | 2 years ago

The Ruling

"Last summer we brought you. The story of one court case posed a determine the future of half the land in Oklahoma and the treaty rights of five tribes, since then so much has happened. Let me fill you in. In two thousand eighteen, the Supreme Court heard the case of Patrick Murphy a man sentenced to death by the state of Oklahoma for murder Murphy claimed Oklahoma didn't have jurisdiction to prosecute him. Because the crime occurred on the reservation of his tribe Muskogee Creek nation. Oklahoma claim that reservation no longer existed last June. The Supreme Court was scheduled to issue its decision, but then it didn't happen at the end of the term as you know, and your listeners know. The the court ended up not deciding it and kicking it over for argument. This is Ian Gershon Gorn. Patrick Murphy's lawyer and then in a very unusual. Situation having kicked it over for re argument. The court didn't schedule it for rearmament in schedule it in October didn't schedule it in November but in December. The court made a shocking announcement. The US Supreme Court is scheduled to here in Oklahoma man's appeal today after he said his case should not have been tried in state court, they decided to hear a totally different case in Nineteen ninety-seven Jim. See mcgirt was convicted in central for the rest of his life for raping his wife's forty year old granddaughter. The rape mcgirt committed happened within the boundaries of Creek nations historic territory. is also a tribal citizen of Seminal Nation of. His alleged crime and Patrick Murphy's are both agree justice, but states don't have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians Indian land, only tribes and the federal government do. Mr mcgirt, having learned of the Murphy case in the Tenth Circuit in the victory there with the help of fellow inmates, so-called Jailhouse Lawyers filed a Pro Se handwritten petition in the Oklahoma State Court, he lost in the State Court, and then he filed a handwritten pro se Sur petition in the Supreme Court. On December Thirteenth Twenty nineteen the supreme. Court announced that they would hear his case, so he didn't have a lawyer up until and through his Supreme Court. Petition, that lawyer became Ian Gershon Gorn, but if the Supreme Court was already deciding this issue with Murphy, why would they choose to hear a second and basically identical case if you remember and Murphy Justice Gorsuch recused himself because he had dealt with the case in the lower court so the supreme. Supreme. Court was down to just eight justices, an even number that seems to have left them with a tie vote. What the court was doing was looking for another case that presented the same legal issue, but would do so in a context in which justice gorsuch was not recused, which brings the total number of justices back up to nine, so the case that would ultimately decide native land and treaty rights, and our state became mcgirt the Oklahoma. I this morning case, eighteen, ninety, five, twenty, six mcgirt versus Oklahoma. This is chief. Justice Roberts, speaking on a conference call like all our lives. The Supreme Court's term was disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic. The transition to at home hearings came with a few awkward moments. Thank you council Justice Gorsuch. But it also made history for the first time ever. The public could listen live. That Monday morning I was sitting at my desk with C.. Span Open on my computer. It felt like everyone in Indian country was tuned an angel LS Creek citizen and reporter for Muskogee media. The Tribes Newspaper was listening from her home and Ocmulgee. County. I was watching it online and I had my headphones on, and I'm staring at my computer screen. Occasionally I start talking to my computer screen and my kids look at me. Like what was mom gone crazy or she? Just you know kind of having a rant. It was kind of strange to be watching. people talk about your tribe and and components of their history and. Maybe, they do or maybe they don't always understand. It was really surreal. Experience I felt like I was experiencing history and my dining room table.

Us Supreme Court Oklahoma Oklahoma State Court Patrick Murphy Murphy Justice Gorsuch Ian Gershon Gorn Justice Gorsuch Mr Mcgirt Muskogee Creek Justice Roberts Angel Ls Creek Murder Jailhouse Lawyers Ocmulgee Muskogee JIM Reporter
Supreme Court throws out Louisiana abortion restrictions

Bloomberg Law

07:32 min | 2 years ago

Supreme Court throws out Louisiana abortion restrictions

"Been talking to Stephen Black professor at the University of Texas Law School about the decision today We're a divided Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that opponents said would have left the state with only one abortion clinic. Chief Justice John Roberts provided the crucial vote during the court's liberal justices in a 5 to 4 majority. So Justice Stephen Breyer, who also wrote the majority opinion in the Texas Case, wrote the majority opinion here did he reiterated his reasoning in the Texas case, or did he just follow precedent? No American. I think a lot of the plurality of him by the prior was very much not just reiterating what he wrote for the majority four years ago in the home of health case, but also do not carefully trying to explain why that decision for your so should control the case. Why the Louisiana line is not in any material way. Actually, or legally different fromthe law that the court threw out in Texas four years ago. If I can, you know for Brier, the queue is to show why these cases are not the similar And you know, I don't get you. Justice. Roberts actually agreed with that. I think you just agreed with the endorsement of the analysis from the earlier decision on hold and help if that's why he felt obliged and compelled to write separately. What was the thread running through the dissenting opinions? What's interesting about this case is, you know if you read the sentinel opinions that actually very little tune about roar, Casey and a whole lot about standing, you know, I think for the defenders, the ground they were hoping in this case would be resolved on Was that the abortion providers June Medical Services, etcetera weren't proper parties. The challenge Louisiana long the first place that would have allowed the court sidestep a major ruling on the stuff into scope of the right to pursue a pre viability abortion. But of course, there were consequences all his own indignant much harder for a court to hear these kinds of pieces going forward, so No, I think for the dissenters for justice Promise Justice Alito. The quarters from Kavanaugh know there at least stated opposition here with principally to the court allow in this case to reach America at all. I suspect June that that no one will be surprised if no. Were those marriage to be properly before them. They just hostile to them that know the descent maybe focus on stand them, but I think it's not hard to imagine that there are objections on the merits behind them as well. So during his confirmation hearings, Justice Cavanaugh was questioned again and again on Roe v. Wade, and he said he would follow precedent. Did he veer from that in this decision? I don't think so. I mean, just, Kavanaugh wrote only a very short to page dissent, although he joined a large chunk of just much longer defense. You know, I think Kavanaugh is a little bit cagey and careful on exactly that point. Doesn't say a lot about roar. Casey. He really put it on the procedural question of whether these planets had standin on why he thinks that matter should have been read ended the trial court traditional back finding on that question. But, you know, I think folks are not gonna have trouble reason. If you imagine this is You know, suitable and without necessarily saying that he's probably a reliable vote for the conservatives in a case where the merits of an abortion restriction really aren't properly before the court. You know, I don't think it's directly inconsistent with anything, he said during the confirmation process, But Matt it certainly doesn't come running like wall. We've heard a lot about Justice Roberts Justice Gorsuch Has Cavanaugh been a reliable conservative vote during his first term here, I think, for the most part, I mean, I think there's one or two paces June where You know he's been on the other side. We're siding with the progressive on Ly one that comes to mind when you was the deciding vote on. It wasn't an especially major contention case that without an antitrust case You know, I think he's probably been in some respects more reliable in a smaller data set as a conservative vote than justice. Gorsuch has been, obviously, of course, it's you know, it's fresh off of the Majority opinion he wrote in the LGBT discrimination case, You know, so I think I think it's pretty clear that injustice. Cavanaugh, the conservative, got what they were hoping for. Um Whether that hold across the larger data set, we'll see. But you know, I also think it's also a sign of the times. June. You know, we had a 30 year period We had a Supreme Court with No. Two very obvious swing. That justice is Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, where you could see these pretty profound shift in majorities from one case to the next. That's not where we are. Now we have a solid conservative majority and results, like the abortion case, don't change that. I think they just show that there are at least some elements that even the solid conservative majority won't transgress. This was the third time in two weeks that Chief Justice John Roberts disappointed conservatives in a blockbuster opinion. Is he now the next Justice Kennedy Oh, I think it's been clear June since Justice Cabin always confirmed to the Supreme Court that in most, not all but most of the high profile, divisive partisan No social and contentious cases before the Supreme Court. The departure of death of Kennedy puts to Justice Robert from the middle, and I think, you know we're seeing that this term in spades. It's not just his decisive vote today in the Louisiana abortion paid not just his majority opinion in the doc a case you know that he also joined Justice Gorsuch. In the LGBT discrimination case, So you know they're going to be out liars where it's not the chief Cruz the swing vote, But I think you know in the high profile cases more often than not, yes, where there's a 5 to 4 majority, and it's No for the conservatives who sent him the the one who will have been personally to switch sides with the chief justice John, I don't think that's because anything about the chief has changed. I think that because No. The court itself has changed. And because the kind of dispute the court is taken are increasingly grounds new towards ones where any of those five justices were going. Be disinclined Tio. Ride with the quote unquote conservative position. It's going to be John Roberts. Using this opinion and looking forward at some of the other opinions that are coming out, especially the decision on the subpoenas for Trump's financial records. Does this tell us anything about how justice Roberts may vote on that? I really don't think so. You know, I don't think that this is any kind of broader shift or pattern in how the chief justice instead of his job, you know, I think he's he's able to take that from cases differently. I mean, you know, right after we got the abortion opinion this morning, we got the chief justice's majority opinion. And that's the Buchanans, which was a very classically conservative separation of powers. Hold them from him. So I don't think we should read anything broader into his vote in these cases, other than the reality that he is now the Longboat And, you know, do not could show up again as early as you know the cases where they were coming down on Tuesday or the rest of this week or next week. You know, I don't think this is the last time this term that the chief going to be the swing vote, But I also don't think that you know the fact that he's this one wrote in some cases allows us to predict in which cases It most likely

Chief Justice John Roberts Justice Roberts Justice Gorsuc Supreme Court Justice Cavanaugh Justice Anthony Kennedy Justice Stephen Breyer Louisiana Justice Alito Justice Roberts Kavanaugh Texas Justice Sandra Day Justice Cabin Casey Justice Robert Stephen Black University Of Texas Law School June Medical Services
Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers protected under civil rights law

Bloomberg Law

01:05 min | 2 years ago

Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers protected under civil rights law

"Radio it's a watershed moment for gay rights as the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case on Monday that federal law protects gay and transgender workers from job discrimination giving millions of LGBT people in dozens of states civil rights they've sought for decades Gerald Bostock was one of the plaintiffs I'm overwhelmed with joy my heart is filled with gratitude it was a six to three decision with Chief Justice John Roberts and justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court's four liberals in the majority one of the biggest surprises with that the majority opinion was written by conservative justice Gorsuch although perhaps there was a hint during the oral arguments that he would interpret the word sex in title seven to cover sexual orientation and gender identity let's do Cruzeiro okay wouldn't wouldn't be employer maybe say it's because this was this person was a man who like other men and is that the first part

Supreme Court Gerald Bostock Chief Justice John Roberts Neil Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch
Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers protected under civil rights law

Bloomberg Law

01:05 min | 2 years ago

Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers protected under civil rights law

"Radio it's a watershed moment for gay rights as the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case on Monday that federal law protects gay and transgender workers from job discrimination giving millions of LGBT people in dozens of states civil rights they've sought for decades Gerald Bostock was one of the plaintiffs I'm overwhelmed with joy my heart is filled with gratitude it was a six to three decision with Chief Justice John Roberts and justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court's four liberals in the majority one of the biggest surprises with that the majority opinion was written by conservative justice Gorsuch although perhaps there was a hint during the oral arguments that he would interpret the word sex in title seven to cover sexual orientation and gender identity let's do Cruzeiro okay I wouldn't wouldn't be employer maybe say it's because this was this person was a man who like other men and is that the first part six

Supreme Court Gerald Bostock Chief Justice John Roberts Neil Gorsuch Justice Gorsuch
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

Newsradio 700 WLW

01:33 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on Newsradio 700 WLW

"Majority justice Gorsuch said those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result but the limits of the drafters imagination supply no reason to ignore the laws demands in dissent justices Alito and Thomas equated the majority opinion with legislation since sexual orientation and gender identity do not appear the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four on the list of reasons why someone could not be fired Erin cutters he ABC news New York the court decided by that six three vote that a key provision of the civil rights act known as title seven does bar job discrimination because of sex among other reasons that encompasses bias against LGBTQ workers justice Gorsuch went on to write sex plays a necessary role in the decision just what title seven for bids Jerry Preston ABC news and K. you continuing to plan for fall classes later this year northern Kentucky university on Monday announcing it will resume in person classes August seventeenth their plan called in K. you moving forward will have both in person and online remote elements when it comes to classes small classes will be a larger classrooms to provide proper social distancing and large classes will be reduced or put in larger rooms within the student union or other facilities in person classes will not be taking place after thanksgiving break the buildings and offices on campus will stay open the final week of the semester and finals week will be done remotely I'm John Gallagher news radio seven hundred WLW they discovered nineteen numbers in Ohio there are currently thirty eight thousand five hundred and thirty six confirmed cases of the corona virus with two thousand three hundred and forty two deaths in.

Alito New York Ohio Thomas Erin ABC justice Gorsuch Jerry Preston Kentucky John Gallagher
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on WTVN

WTVN

07:19 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on WTVN

"Cough no I don't have anything actually any decision written by justice Gorsuch the court ruled that title seven of the Civil Rights Act which was passed in nineteen sixty four before anyone could fathom transgenderism applies to transgenderism and sexual orientation C. just for fun out the sixty four Civil Rights Act is very very important in basically among many other things it prohibits the discrimination in hiring and firing employment of individuals based on sex in other words whether male or female not sexual orientation that is what you do with your genitalia it's what Janet tell you you'll have got it taken together these decisions so the court believes that it is an inalienable right to transgenderism in illegal immigration but not the second amendment the court believes it can tamper with every state criminal and capital conviction on ever evolving novel grounds but it somehow believes a state can criminalize foundational federal immigration powers a world upside down well we have one consistent originalist on the court Clarence Thomas with justice Alito a step or two behind by far the most devastatingly consequential case of the day was the trans gender discrimination case quote unquote Bostock versus Clayton county writing for the majority Gorsuch claims that when the statute uses the term sex it can apply to sexual orientation and gender identity quoted employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates title seven he says of the civil rights act in nineteen sixty four he was joined by the four Democrat appointees as well as Chief Justice Roberts well that's good to know that gender and sex are indeed not separate things as the rainbow jihad lobby he writes as indicated for so many years in other words he sang that's not what that community argues but either way this ruling is absurd beyond belief I'll tell you why what Gorsuch does is not just intellectually dishonest it's intellectually discussed the he rewrites the Civil Rights Act he rewrites the section of it he plays word games and semantics and then he says he's the original and all the reporting on this today has been that this is a historic decision not that this is a horrific violation of separation of powers not that we have a cord out of control that ignores the legislative history Norris the legislative intent ignores the actual legislative text violates the will of Congress violates the people that represents Congress but this is historic and let me tell you what else is going to unleash massive litigation against businesses in this country against religious institutions in this country Agence educational institutions with the religious spent in this country because now it's not your sex that is your genitalia that you can't be fired for it's what you do with it in other words in other words it's going to now be all kinds of moral and other sorts of conflicts that take place and so what Gorsuch and Roberts have done with the four left us on the court is created another roe decision another row decision big on propaganda and platitudes short on specifics written with absolute intellectual dishonesty and now the public the rest of us have to tackle it and deal with this is how you disunited society this is how you show absolute disrespect for the rule of law I mean after all if the court isn't going to comply with the statute then why should the people comply with a court decision it is an insane argument that Gorsuch uses we tried to be very very clever and so you won't get the facts in the media the one good thing about Supreme Court opinions you can actually read them and understand what the judge or justice is coming from but Gorsuch decision is a roe V. Wade decision that is he will be ridiculed over time just as the roe decision even though people like the outcome has been ridiculous and so the court again as a politburo it's not accorded justice as I said in chapter one in men in black these are radicals and ropes is ed Meese once said years and years ago the American people will never be able to regain democratic self government in that shape public policy until we curb activist judges and as I say the problem is these people lie when the president is Republican especially basic conservative they lie because they so desperately want to be on the Supreme Court where they can tell you and me what to do and in this area social or cultural issues the Supreme Court has nationalized a federalized damn near everyone of them and in no instance to uphold traditional faith or traditional Marles ever and the court is impatient it's in a hurry so I have some states passing laws they do exactly what the Supreme Court decided today Gorsuch but it's not fast enough you see and then there's always this just because you're a judge or justice doesn't mean another massive ego as a matter of fact usually means you do your honor your honor and people are trying to make the case an oral argument but your honors at the keep interrupting them because they're so smart why listen when you.

justice Gorsuch
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on WGN Radio

WGN Radio

02:04 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on WGN Radio

"Doors are open and cleanliness is their priority so when you stop by they'll be ready the convenience stores of speedway more laughter WGN traffic central the forecast from the WGN Chicago weather center here's meteorologist Paul Conrad plenty of sunshine across Chicago land again here this afternoon with daytime high readings topping out into the mid seventies upper sixties lakeside tonight mainly clear skies will drop into the mid fifties and then tomorrow the warm up begins will spend tomorrow and all the way through Friday with sunshine and temperatures in the mid to upper eighties maybe even lower nineties here for Thursday and Friday next chance for rain arrives here Friday night and Saturday and Sunday showers and thunderstorms likely fifty to sixty percent chance for rain on Saturday with a high of eighty six degrees Sunday's high near eighty from the WGN weather center I'm Paul Conrad AT sixty eight right now doe here seventy eight midway sixty two which Chicago's lakefront and historic decision by the Supreme Court today marking a victory for the L. G. B. T. Q. community and the rights they have in this country the nation's highest court ruling six to three that L. G. B. T. Q. Americans can not be subjected to workplace discrimination or fired because of who they are and they're protected under the federal civil rights law in place since the nineteen sixties the ruling was written by justice Gorsuch ABC's Terry Moran explains his opinion but even though the drafters to Congress that voted on the president that signed that nineteen sixty four Civil Rights Act may not have gay and transgender and lesbian people in their mind they wrote a law that embraces them and today all Americans are protected from discrimination at work by that law it was a six to three decision opposed by justices Cavanaugh Alito and Thomas CTA supervisors suing two Chicago police officers and the city after she was told to drop the complaint against one of the officers or face arrest here's WGN's James Sears let's usually tells the Tribune she was the CTA incident commander to stabbing on the Jackson Bradley platform in February deciding if trains should bypass the station.

Paul Conrad Chicago Supreme Court Terry Moran Congress president Cavanaugh Alito Thomas CTA WGN Tribune L. G. B. T. Gorsuch ABC James Sears
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on KLIF 570 AM

KLIF 570 AM

02:16 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on KLIF 570 AM

"High Court justice Gorsuch writing in this opinion saying that today we decide that whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender and the answer is clear an employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for treats that would not have been questioned by members of a different sex the White House is considering another two trillion in economic stimulus business correspondent Christine Romans has traded by Sir Peter Navarro says the administration wants a two trillion dollar package focused on can hire Americans get another court decision today the High Court is passed up several challenges to state and federal gun control laws over the decided to conservative justices in this just in the food and drug administration has no pulled its emergency authorization for hydroxy core quintet Hilaria drugs prescribed for coronavirus the Dow down to sixty I'm Mike marks news brought to you by quicken loans K. L. A. F. Soto weight loss newsdesk this is a real news and information five seventy KLIF good morning I'm Amy shall drop here's what's happening Texas's primary runoff election is almost upon us and if you want to vote in it your face a deadline today's the last day Texans have to register to vote or update their addresses for the July fourteenth primary runoff election the election was postponed for made because of the cold at nineteen pandemic most interest probably going to Democrats who will choose who they want to run against Republican incumbent senator John Cornyn there are also fifteen congressional primaries now headed into the second round Dennis Martin J. L. A. F. news a domestic disturbance in fort worth led to the arrest of a Dallas police officer who is accused of entering his ex wife's home without permission fort worth police were called out to valley Vista drive early Sunday where they arrested forty one year old James Gordon on a charge of criminal trespass of a habitation Gordon has been with DPD since twenty fourteen he was assigned to the Dallas southwest patrol division he bonded out of jail and will be placed on administrative leave according to Dallas police another check on traffic.

justice Gorsuch White House Christine Romans Sir Peter Navarro High Court Texas senator John Cornyn officer James Gordon Mike marks K. L. A. F. Soto Dennis Martin J. L. A. F. Dallas Dallas southwest patrol
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

C-SPAN Radio

02:11 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio

"And that's what the trademark laws are about so you do that but secondly I think that they want it for the eleven twenty five it's a specific problem with spoofing and cyber and cyber scams and that is definitely what the internet I look as police are saying is that they needed an actual booking cares about booking does not like internet scams and cyber scams is feeling good business and routing a trepidation because you know someone can fax your internet destroys or you know your identity thank you counsel justice Gorsuch good morning if I understand your point correctly miss black it's that the government's concerns about their competitive advantage are minimized or mitigated by the fact that marks like booking dot com a relatively weak because you're putting together two generic terms and consumers may well have your company in mind when they see that we've got evidence and we can argue about how good that is but there may be no consumer confusion and that may also be true with the booking a hotel booking consumers may or may not pay on the facts have particular companies in mind and the relative weakness of the mark is your answer together with the fair use doctrine to the government's monopoly concerns is a is it a fair summary much better than I sent we expound on that please sure so and I'm just happy with the reason why they're so weak to begin with and why McCarthy has a whole chapter of every lawsuit where you know similarly worded marks can't sue for others let's take weather dot com and accu weather dot com so it turns out that consumers when you have very descriptive marks like both of those that are registered consumers become very conditioned to focus on the different so they know accu is different if you look at booking and evoking consumers would focus on there's the eSight there's the one I want to go to the E. one and so it is very very hard to show likelihood of confusion because.

McCarthy accu justice Gorsuch
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

01:56 min | 2 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Two time for a rush of last month the Supreme Court self described why is let dean of the justice Sonia Sotomayor or road and angry designs after a case did not go her way she accused the court's conservative majority putting their phones on the scales of justice my ruling in favor of the trump administration too often last week the Senate democratic leader Chuck you Schumer did something we've never seen before in America at a rally he threatened to justices Gorsuch in cabin on my name he warned as they have released the whirlwind that day would pay the price they wouldn't know what hit on me said if they voted the wrong way on abortion case well now we have a rebellion on a federal appeals court judge Lynn Adelman Clinton appointees accused the supreme court's conservatives of undermining American democracy favoring corporations hurting minorities weaponizing first amendment and hurting the poor with their rulings he attacked the Senate Republicans for squelching a nomination of Merrick garland he had the gall to compare Republican senators to pro slavery southerners during the civil war judge gentleman's attacks are clearly partisan leave little doubt that a conservative could get a fair hearing in his courtroom now when a Democrat leader can get away with threatening Supreme Court justices I guess we should expect this kind of reprimand behavior from other leftists in robes and the corona virus intrust but don't doubt Russian noon to three five point nine Washington's mall W. M. A. L. Hey folks taking care your property never easy it's tough so you need to make him right the official tractor of tough tractors have to be tough to be the world's number one selling farm tractor in your tough to your mall past years U..

America Gorsuch Republicans Merrick garland Washington Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor Senate Chuck you Schumer Lynn Adelman Clinton W. M. A. L. official
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

07:39 min | 3 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on News-Talk 1400 The Patriot

"Welcome back to the terminal review with you you it brought you in partnership with eighty at alliance defending freedom justice deal Gorsuch is the very fine successor to and then scholia conservative hearts beat strong especially when they remember how narrowly missed losing that seat to a left wing judge justice Gorsuch as most certainly not disappointment on the court and readers will not be disappointed with this book a Republic if you can keep it I found it in the light justice Gorsuch join me on the show I'd like to begin with the parts of your book that deal with your two mentors your two justices justice Byron white and justice Anthony Kennedy because they're both amazing portraits justice white is the super human human figure but his walk among the portraits with you is a very memorable part of a Republic if you can keep it tell us about that. a memorable moment in my life you are I would walk for about thirty years ago now and. we were walking down the hall in the United States called workers of the former justice. he leaned over near their mail. how many years old guys you actually know the name. and the moment I realized I was given. embarrassed when I thought about. and he said something that really shocked. you need to. that's exactly how it should. to be forgotten. soon enough. and I thought he was that that was. incredibly sad and I couldn't possibly believe it because as a kid growing up in Colorado Byron white is my superhero. let the empty a lot more aggressive first class university hello top of his class yeah law school clerk corporal scholar led the NFL in rushing with the highest. ball player instead Jack Kennedy clan help Bobby Kennedy ordered it out and serve thirty one years of age that it's the Supreme Court wow. and I thought how how could anybody. anybody ever heard it finalized and yet it is prophecy has come to pass by and large except among aficionados of the court. I want to score could every day or night he caressed. yeah I got a quizzical wondering who you. color realized he wasn't pulling something bad that he wasn't melancholy. he was in prison the crews that he found joyful he gave up a lot of money in a whole lot of using power and they. Sir. the log this country love is constitutional knew the grateful and life is a member. all the work on the party attempted to. that's correct. it is a great story in a Republic if you can keep and I like the fact that you mix hi constitutional theory with some vivid portraits that most people don't get one more justice Anthony Kennedy again you Clark fram but I believe in the first instance of this occurring on the Supreme Court you also served with him and there comes a moment when you are giving your first opinion by the bench to write as one of the nine and it gets circulated for the other eight to either join can Kerr in our descent can you tell the story what justice Kennedy did and why he did it. is one of the most hi hello do you think given the. no matter when you for the item because the structure that correct he's always got a. for me the story what you call it. professional. yes I I had the great pleasure of being the first law clerk clerk with his former boss on this record United States. and I got my first assignment the court knows what you've got if you have one that they know it's gonna be nine L. people are going to join up quickly not could be a problem. why I'm good my name late in the day I've been working on it all day. have gone home when he got one that I. one of his walk fax without them as fast as possible but as house first no I didn't want anybody else hi. well actually broken. so you had a clockwork grind it out later that night. no justice Kennedy trying my. that's exactly it's one of the touch is in the rubble public if you can keep it like justice Ginsburg returning to you justice white's handbook on courts is that what we call it. well I don't know so so what I what I was gonna wife Walker you require. justice white put together Walker instructions that ms Walker hello no what you what not. how to convert over to her. you know some typically home all the time. my law clerk Manulife made five use I don't have much use for him anymore myself. well within the first week of my life what the court. but twenty five years later I get a note from Burke saying welcome they all know recognize some of the. was given to me twenty five years ago I hope but improved it a little bit along the way. now in your book dresses course such as you did at your parents at the Nixon library you spend a lot of time trying to get non lawyers and lawyers alike to understand why you have James Madison on the wall of your chambers and why the separation of powers he designed first for the Virginia plan ultimately that emerged in Philadelphia in seventeen eighty seven why that separation of powers is so important right now right today for everyone listening to the show can you tell people why that is. everybody knows how the first amendment could be. right kind of odd but the powers but high school civics. hi I'm Bruce a cart he won the game. well greens they'll provide around the world ours is kind of the better ones but not the past month month North Korea. Thomas is all the lights on our bill of rights the right to free education you're right. of course of course the leader. they're not worth the paper they're written. we could all power is concentrated in one person. not a whole. he did not are not angels. real he promises the bill of rights. in some ways. that separation of powers so I am one nine one third of our federal government which is one of our government yeah. yeah. in high school stuff. it was convenient but that's what I think are you how when we muddle up the separation of powers. real people real cases and harms we a lot. my complete conversation with justice Gorsuch go.

justice Gorsuch Anthony Kennedy Jack Kennedy Byron white Bobby Kennedy Supreme Court United States Colorado NFL Thomas twenty five years thirty one years thirty years nine L
"justice gorsuch" Discussed on KTTH 770AM

KTTH 770AM

02:24 min | 3 years ago

"justice gorsuch" Discussed on KTTH 770AM

"That went viral there was a young law student Patrick so cal scheme who is a rising to al at the university of Dayton law school he tweeted that he had sent a letter asking for some advice from the justice justice Gorsuch and to his delight Gorsuch actually responded personally and he posted a photograph of this letter that Gorsuch sent to him and it's just it's short and sweet and it's wonderful here's what Gorsuch wrote dear Mr at some Caskey thank you for your letter I am honored that you requested my autograph and I'm happy to provide it below my advice to law students is very simple work hard learn to write and speak effectively never give up your passions treasure your family and friendships find time to do public service and learn to win and lose graciously more than all that know that you will have many regrets in life things said or done or left unsaid or undone the one thing you will never regret is being kind sincerely Neil Gorsuch associate justice of the US Supreme Court that's the entire letter it is a cinch I think it is really beautifully written which is something course which is known for and it really puts things in perspective talking about need help industriousness talking about passion talking about public service graciousness and above all kindness and I just thought I would share that with you also remind you that the Democrats tried to filibuster this guy what a strategic mistake that was but he's got a bit of a libertarian streak he's definitely anti statist he stands up for the little guy sometimes he sides with the liberals on the court in certain circumstances where I think it's actually quite smart of him in the correct decision big fan of Neil Gorsuch I know we had a giant throw down over Cavanaugh and he's fine.

Caskey US Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch Cavanaugh Patrick university of Dayton law schoo justice Gorsuch