19 Burst results for "Justice Kagan"
Justices say accident victims can sue Ford in state courts
"In favor of car accident victims who have wanted to sue Ford. Maybe she's Aaron Khutor ski explains to accident Victims one in Minnesota and one in Montana sued Ford in the states where they're accidents occurred. Ford tried to get those cases dismissed, arguing the states had no jurisdiction because the cars were not manufactured in them. In an opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court said, when a company like Ford serves a market for a product in a state and that product causes injury in the state to one of its residents, the state's courts may entertain the resulting suit. Roughly 14% of US
The relationship between Justice Scalia and RBG
"Lies in state in the Capitol today, the first woman ever given that honor in the first Supreme Court justice since William Howard Taft and he'd also been the president. Justice. Ginsburg's casket was at the court for two days for people to pay their respects, including President Trump, and the first lady booed when they got there. The president has had nice things to say about Justice Ginsburg since her death, you may agree. You may not disagree with her, but he was an inspiration to a tremendous number of people. I say all Americans, and now, he says, it's his job to fill that seat on the court. I think it's very important that we have nine justices. And I think the system is going to go very quickly. The president plans to announce his nominee tomorrow. Joe Biden, and a lot of other Democrats say he should fill that seat if he wins the election in light of Republicans blocking President Obama from filling a seat in an election year, the seat President Obama would have filled incident. Scalia's went to Neil Gorsuch instead of Merrick Garland. For all the fighting. There's been over Justices Scalia and Ginsburg in life. They were very good friends. People always find it surprising that they were such good friends, Christopher Scully's the Eighth of Incident. Scalia's nine Children. There's a new collection published of his father's writing called The Essential Scalia. Their friendship went back. Really to the early eighties, when they were judges together on the D C circuit Court of Appeals, which is kind of like the second most important court in the country, and they they had a good working relationship that which really started back then they would help each other revised their drafts and their opinions. Apparently, the other judges on that court really didn't like getting advice about their writing and how to improve the clarity of what they're writing in the force of their arguments. But Justice Ginsburg liked getting and receiving that kind of advice, and so did my dad, and they formed what he called a mutual improvement society during their time on the court there. And And they had other things in common. They were they had similar backgrounds and that they were both New Yorkers grew up in New York around the same time, different boroughs but around the same time and shared a love of opera. Good wine eating good food. Both of their thousands were excellent cooks. Marty Ginsburg, in particular, is kind of a legendary cook, who would put together wonderful meals every New Year's Eve and they would celebrate New Year's Every every year is well. So you know, despite all their differences, and all the many things they disagreed about, including a number of opinions in this collection. They had a wonderful friendship were able to kind of focus on the things they had in common. Your dad in Justice Ginsburg, I don't know the statistics on how often they concurred or dissented on cases. But I imagine that they disagreed. Maybe as much as any two Recent justices have my right. Yeah, I think that that sounds right. I don't know the statistics, either. I think people would be surprised by how often they agreed with each other. But on the real hot button cultural cases, they often disagreed one of her most important, most famous opinions. Was Virginia Military Institute case from the mid nineties. And my My father wrote a dissent to that case, which is in this collection, the essentials, Scalia and it was hey actually gave her the draft of that descent a little bit earlier than one usually does just so that she would have more time to kind of Deal with it and grapple grapple with his arguments. And and, yeah, some of his most staying the sense we're in response to opinions. She didn't necessarily right but but joined, And I think that's probably true. Vice versa. Tell us very about the big bouquet of roses she got from him. My dad would get her roses for her birthday and I guess the Ah, I think the last time he did that. So the year before he died, one of the editors of the Essential Scalia Judge Jeffrey Sutton was visiting my father in chambers on on Justice Ginsburg's birthday. And he saw that my dad had two dozen roses for Justice Ginsburg and Judge Sutton started teasing Dad saying, You know, I haven't even gotten my wife two dozen roses over the course of our entire marriage. Why would you do this? And besides, When was the last time she cited with you on a really important 54 decision? You know, he's poking fun, You know, not not really being serious, but My dad gave a serious answer, which was some things are more important than votes. As I think I just kind of a great encapsulation of their of their relationship of their friendship they had they had Very different opinions of politics and of their jobs as a zoo judges and of what laws, men and with the Constitution, man. But, uh, how they voted wasn't the biggest factor in their relationship. It wasn't that those opinions didn't matter. And it wasn't that they compromised their beliefs for each other. But they didn't let those very strongly held beliefs undermine their very deep friendship collection of Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia is writing sort of like a greatest hits album. It's opinions and other writing about the law and the Constitution again called the Essential Scalia. This is really just a collection of his greatest Legal writings, opinions, speeches, essays and they collected together give a really good sense of white. Exactly. He was such a significant Supreme Court justice on it. They're having in one collection really makes it tangible for anybody understand that we'll just as a legal reference work. You've got to think it's going to end up being bought by or four A lot of lawyers and judges know absolutely in law students. I hope you know that he he wrote. Clearly, he wrote, Hey, had so many memorable phrases and his opinions. His logic was so strong and convincing that people just kind of they often went to his opinions first. And so it's good for people to kind of have that as a resource to keep going to those opinions. Even you know, even after His passing is also besides the legal community. It's also like you said. It's very readable, even for non lawyers for just a general interest audience who might, but he was just simply a very, very good writer. Yeah, it's exactly right. He hey, wrote. For? I guess we would now call it out of transparency. You know, Even when he was writing Supreme court opinions, he understood that they should be understood themselves by everyday citizens, not just legal eagles and people with legal degrees. He kind of a recurring theme of his opinions. Is that people should know what the court courts are doing and people that the court should not usurp power that properly belongs to the people. And I think that kind of reverence for the Democratic order is is kind of manifest in his in the clarity of his writing a lot of times if he had a vote, a personal vote on how a case would turn out it may or may not a lot of times did a line with how he ruled, But sometimes it probably wouldn't have right. Yeah, I think that's true. And that's especially true in one example is when he sided with the majority in a flag burning case. The majority ruled that, um, it was constitutional sorry from burning the flag was constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment so prohibiting that in the state law was unconstitutional. My father often explained that he did not like Three idea of flag burning. If he were a king, he would ban it. But clearly to him falls under the protection of the protection of the First Amendment, and a lot of conservatives to this day do not like that opinion. My father thought the Constitution was clear about that. There are many examples in this collection, the essential Scalia of instances in which he stands up for the rights of the accused defendant's rights. There's a famous case in here where search and seizure cases as well there a couple of those in here where he just thought, you know the police do not have authority, for example, to use Scans of houses, Tio identify Marilou who was growing marijuana without that was an illegal search examples like that s so if he could just pass a law That was one thing, but actually sorry, there couldn't be even be lost for that because they so clearly violated the Constitution, even though obviously he wouldn't have approved of those particular actions. Sure. Hey, was also notice the talker during oral arguments. He has asked a lot of questions and clearly sometimes, though, they weren't really questions. They were just arguments he was making to his fellow justices. Do you think he went into most cases with his mind made up based on the briefs, and the president is a bad thing, but not usually the case. I think that the justices, you know, I can't say for certain, but my hunch is that they often have to go in with a pretty good idea, but I think for the most part, they do ask questions, not just Not just to be heard or not just to make arguments, but because they want to really engage with the arguments that the lawyers are making in the forward to this collection, Justice Kegan first of all, very happy that she agreed to write this beautiful forward, But she she says that she says just that, you know, Dad would ask these questions because he loved argument and kind of loved mixing it up. It wasn't just kind of wasn't just for show though he did. I think you're right. He was very kind of an engaging speaker and There was some study years ago that that found he was. He was the funniest justice by the standards of he drew the most laughter from the courtroom during oral arguments, which obviously isn't the most important thing to do, but just shows how much he he enjoyed that process that love for debate. Did it? Was it a two way street was? Was he persuadable? Absolutely. That's something justice Kagan mentions in her forward. She doesn't say when she ever changed his mind, but says They change each other's minds at times. Well, Christopher Scalia, It was great to talk, Teo, The book is called The Essential Scalia on the Constitution, the courts and the rule of law. Chris Scalia. Really good to talk to you. Thanks so much, Thanks so much appreciate your time.
"justice kagan" Discussed on C-SPAN Radio
"A situation where the nation were to assert sovereignty in a way that went beyond the bounds of those agreements and that the state I took umbrage with you know Cheryl is an arsenal in in the states that the state can employ in in those situations but what surely is very clear that there's a clear distinction between reservation boundaries and whether they exist or not and what equitable defenses might apply to the assertion of tribal authority within those boundaries justice Gorsuch this is a reason she's print radio programming from Monday cancel there's been a fair amount of discussion so far this morning about the Oklahoma enabling act and the suggestion that it's inconceivable that Congress would have admitted to a new state of the union where a significant portion of the state would have been a federal reservations subject to major crimes act I'm not sure we've given you all a doctor chance to have at that so I applied Preciado throw response to that question thank you justice courses do nothing inconsistent between the advent of statehood and reservation boundaries the song case make that patently clear the Cheyenne river reservation and the rose with two reservation were ordained hi eight months before statehood Congress clearly on and they both may account for about ten percent of the state's land mass alone Congress clearly understood at this time that states could come into being with significant reservation master the Arizona became a state shortly after Oklahoma that was twenty seven percent of the state Wayne manis this court by that time had recognized that state jurisdiction in the criminal area and the civil area could pertain to non Indians on reservations and had established this framework of concurrent jurisdiction that still persists to today thank you counsel yes this catalog thank you Chief Justice in good morning as I mentioned the last comment I think we have to understand what the situation was as of eighteen ninety nine either understand the tax to be statutes but I want to focus on the tax in particular the text of the statute that abolishes the tribal courts and the text of the statute that creates an essence municipal towns within Indian Territory during the eighteen nineties and what's the significance of those two statutes are processing sovereignty because ultimately the questions justice Thomas suggested I think is what what's the status of legislative executive and judicial power how should we think about those statutes with the tribal courts in the municipal council if you've got any just one minute to answer this question because it's it's critical and it's an excellent question justice Kavanaugh with Richard exactly how much time you have an issue with respect to the courts it's critical remember most tries did not have a tribal court to this time it was a rarity that the five tribes did so in restricting and then eliminating those tribal court I was merely putting them on the same plane as other tribes and then more generally speaking with respect to the quantum of governmental powers and you know justice cannot Congress has regularly adjusted the meets in bounds of tribal sovereignty that's what this court recognized in Lara but is never equated the quantum of power with the existence of the reservations themselves and if they're on the trial court's point the difference I think some would say is that the other tribes are not governing and jurisdiction that was predominantly non Indian justice panel which is what was going on here any reaction to that says look at exactly what happened in nineteen oh one and thereafter with the allotment act the trial courts were gone but the secretary of the interior continue to enforce the tribe's legislative authority section forty two made it very clear that that legislative authority persisted the sectarian forced the try to log in this court's decision in Hitchcock and the circuit's decision in buster make it crystal clear that the tribes legislative authority persisted after the act in question were were enacted thank you counsel general medicine honey thank you Mr Chief Justice and may it please the court Oklahoma has jurisdiction over the eastern half of the state because it never was reservation land and it's certainly not reservation land today to start the land was not public land preserve from sale where title remains with the United States but instead patented in seat to the creek nation that is why this court in U. S. C. creek creek nation called it a former dependent Indian communities and underpin it tight it clearly lost that status when the C. patent what's dismantled the line was a reservation Congress stripped away all semblance of reservation status stolen asks us whether Congress's purpose was to get past the tides of all its interest in the land in here statute after statute did precisely that the Curtis act and the tribal governance of the land the allotment agreement divestiture tribe of all its right title and interest in developments were quickly stripped of federal superintendents everyone at the time read the statutes to mean the state had jurisdiction and the land was not a reservation thank you counsel are Mr Gershon born in response to a question from justice Kagan argue that dependent Indian community was an umbrella term that included reservation I teach justice Roberts and your response to that the I think that definition would completely make eleven fifty one piece of plastic it would read it right out of the statue with this court seventeen a tie is that tribes with Landon C. R. quote on the light the Indians living on reservations citing Sandoval which compares the for the pueblos who had a dependent Indian community at the century the same as the five tribes and increased nation this court said that the five price had a few simple not the usual Indian right of occupancy which is what is typical reservations and it was attended Indian community I think Congress went out and codified Sandoval as H. as a type of land status separate and apart from reservations which is what this court held in Kenya hi thank you counsel justice Thomas yes I'm cancelling the I'm very interested in and your point that this mission characterized this as a dependent nation first I'd like you sources say weathered why do you think that and why it matters opposing counsel seems to think that it's still relevant and as he said as I recall that is also wrong your assessment of that so it gives you an opportunity to both respond to that and to explain to us why it is important so why is it dependent you need community first as I said the vita typeset the tribes with holding their land under restricted C. R. unlike Indians living on reservations send up on creek nation confirmed that and it's ours it doesn't meet the definition of a reservation I'll take the definition from pagans Utah land belonging to United States that is reserved from sale and set apart for public uses and in pine river this court sets reserves from sale means if he remains in the unit United States while issuing a few patent is not reserve records from sale it's selling it why it makes sense making land alienable to non Indians independent Indian community and so dependent Indian communities status that's what this court said in Kenya tight and that's what that judge judge Gorsuch at the tenth circuit set in hyper resources on page eleven sixty three and footnotes eleven and thirty of his opinion and that makes tax tool and logical sense because there's a textual difference between eleven fifty one eight which says that a reservation remains one not withstanding the issuance of any patents at eleven fifty one B. which doesn't contain that language and defines a pan Indian communities again judge Gorsuch pointed that out in hydro resources it also makes logical sense because if what created the land was at B. C. patent with the opposite of that the convenience of the keypad to desist Dalglish inspecting accordance with this court's decision in hating the Utah where it's at reservation is reserving land from the public domain so restoring land to the public domain and the reservations Oklahoma Solicitor General buffoon Mustang honey it's yes it's five fifty reservation had been deceased this is fabulous with the tribe have any governing laws already and if so over what the hell major crimes that applying for it is because of prosecutorial sorry state Klein's alliance state court the tribe would have their governments it is in that they would have control over their own internal affairs and managing their property interests which if you look to the tribal understanding at the time as we as you quote in our respondents appendix is exactly what the tribe understood their own authority to be as far as what they have any authority over land there is some land that is under the original C. patent to the river spirit casino in Tulsa is built on the river bed of the Arkansas River because that land was never a lot it so they have governing authority over that land over trust land and over restricted allotments but we think the state nonetheless has jurisdiction over all of the state pursuant to the transfer of state to set the stage for inspection in the enabling act which you know that that what Congress had done in the Indian Territory Sadie Indian territories an area where Indians and non Indians are treated alike in the enabling act and section twenty one extended federal law except we're not local where locally in applicables and it was locally the major crimes that cause locally in applicables in the Indian Territory because the eighteen ninety seven act if the act that conferred jurisdiction not the major crimes act which is why petitioner can't fight a single major crimes act case during this period before statehood or after this question was asked before but what I have a lot of the congressional prescription in Oklahoma all residents are subject the same law respectively I think that lays the framework of what Congress was trying to do you can make in in creating the state of Oklahoma which was to transform the governance of the state and the land ownership of the state which was exclusively triable to a place where both the Indians and non Indians could postpone land and be governed by the same state government if you look at pages twenty three twenty two twenty five our brief we lay out that history and lay out that that is what Congress said explicitly in legislative reports that's what the dollar commission report said and that's what the tribes recognized in their own tribal understanding justice prior thank you I'll pass justice Alito yes it's a leader yes Mr Gershon born has a section of his brief that's labeled the sky is not falling and his argument is that the you in the federal government are exaggerating the effect of this decision that it won't have such a major impact either in the criminal or in civil area is he right in that justice Alito so let me let me put some some solid numbers on this we have currently over seventeen hundred inmates whose crimes were committed in the former Indian Territory who identify as native Americans so the state presumptively.
"justice kagan" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"I mean at one level, just saying, you know voting is kind of, at the very beating heart of democracy. Right. You know, our elected officials work for us, not the vice versa, and we choose them and not vice versa. But beyond all the sort of very frustrated rhetoric. I think that there was this. This Valence there of just people are going to lose confidence. They're going to lose any belief that their vote can matter for a lot of the reasons that Pam is saying, you know, the these illusions that we draw distict trick. I'm sorry that we draw districts, you know, it doesn't have to be perfectly proportional, even though chief Justice Roberts says, that's what we're looking for. But it certainly can't be catastrophically wrong. And M I rate to say that one of the things that Justice Kagan is balking at here is this message that sent to the voters a well as Pam says you ain't saying nothing yet. I think that, that's exactly right. She opened her opinion. I think her recitation of the facts and also close to with it with this question is this, how American democracy is supposed to work? And she says, no one thinks that it should work this way because partisan gerrymandering threatens the very premise of the constitutional democracy, which is that elections are. Supposed to be responsive to the popular will. And with very strong language, she talked about how it debases and values and dishonors our democracy, and how it's really odd for the majority to say that gerrymanders are political questions that can be fixed through elections. When elections are undermined by that. Very gerrymandering. So, yes, she'd really did sound the alarm that the court's approval of partisan gerrymandering and essentially giving the green light to legislatures to do the most extreme partisan gerrymander possible, that they can really will undermine faith in all of our Prentice of room, because it will make those political branches much less responsive to popular will, and democratic sentiment and Pam. What's the test that only in a Kagan is proposing? It's the same she's repurposing the test. She tried out last year. What is the test? And, and is it just icial? Is she creating a standard that, that is workable, you know, alternately political gerrymandering is a question? When have you gone too far and, you know, I think there are a variety of ways of getting to win. Have you gone too far ranging from when somebody gets up and says the purpose of this plan is to screw the other party and make sure their votes? Don't count on down. So I don't think it's I don't think it's so much that there's one, one plane clear test on, I think this is where, you know, the majority gets its rhetorical power at least is the, the argument that there's nothing as, as clean as one person when vote, which, you know, Justice Stewart once described a sixth grade arithmetic, and there isn't a sixth grade arithmetic test, but I think just as Kagan his right. That you, you know, there are ways to, you know, there are ways to come up with. Judicially judicially manageable standards of saying, you know, there's just too much here because this is so a symmetric..
"justice kagan" Discussed on Daily Tech News Show
"It seems like they're leaning against leading the case be brought Justice Kagan said from my perspective. I've just engaged in a one to step transaction with apple piece talking about the ups store. Like I go into Apple Pay apple with my Apple Pay. And I get the app Justice Gorsuch wondered whether the nineteen seventy seven ruling even should apply in modern marketplaces like the app store. He thinks maybe we just need a new ruling altogether Justice cavenaugh said plaintiffs would have more of a right to sue apple if they bought the app from the developers and if apple bought the action the developers and then added it's thirty percent. But the fact that apple just let somebody set the prices seem to be kind of persuasive to him and chief Justice Roberts expressed concern that apple could be held liable on price both by the app, developers and consumers if the suit was allowed. So it wasn't one hundred percent, and we don't know the decision yet. But it does it. It's always hard to read the tea leaves on these. Sometimes the justices will lean one way in their questioning in order to force response. Is that they'll then used to rule in a different way than it looked. All right. So the question here is should apple be able to set prices? Yes. Justice lane. Not not apple be able to set prices. But is apple liable for inflated prices since they take thirty percent. And they don't let developers sell their apps any other way except for the store. One would think. Yes. So you you'd say no, you should be able to sue them for that. I that would be my first response. Yeah. Now, do you think that you should that? Apple should be to lose the lawsuit which is a separate question. Right. It's right. The yeah. You should be allowed to sue that doesn't mean you'll win though. That's a harder question. Right. Yeah. Apple guilty of antitrust by not allowing third party apps in their app store because they don't set prices. They just charge to get in the store, but they charged to get into the app store, and there's no competition. You can't drive down Apple's percentage cut because without jail breaking going around breaking terms of service. There's no other way to get apps on the on the phone. I I would welcome the communities responses. Please feedback. Daily tech news show dot com for now.
"justice kagan" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast
"Is the president of the United States absolutely immune from any and all legal action, whether civil or criminal Sarah, the foundation of our constitution was that as Hamilton explained in federal a sixty nine. The presidency would not be a monarchy in specified all the ways that under the constitution, the president is not above the law. No one is above the law in the United States of America. The president is subject to the law of the supreme court president precedent in cases such as Clinton versus Jones. United States versus Richard Nixon established as those principles cases like Youngstown, establish it in the official capacity and Marbury versus Madison in official capacity. So the president has a thorny under the constitution, the executive power under the constitution, the president as established by the framers of the constitution is not above the law. No, no one's above the law in the United States of America as a practical matter who investigates the president as a practical matter. Traditionally, as I've written about in the Georgetown law journal article and written about elsewhere when there is an allegation of wrongdoing by someone in the executive ranch as to whom there might be a conflict of interest, if the ordinary Justice department process took place, there has been traditionally the appointment by the attorney, general of a special counsel that's gone back for hundred years or so of that kind of outside counsel appointed. Of course, we saw that in Watergate, but we've seen it lots of other times where special counsels have been appointed for particular matters where there is otherwise conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest of some kind. Now. I've, I've had colleagues who have worried about your view that Morrison was wrongly decided. Now your view just to be clear is that Morrison applies only in a special context, no longer relevant here. Is that right? That's correct. What context is that? That's the context of the old independent counsel statute which is distinct from the special counsel system. The old independent counsel statute had a lot of features on to it, and that statute was viewed by the congress when we considered it in nineteen ninety nine is being unrestrained on accountable in permissible, and the statue was not renewed in the Morrison case was thus a one off case as I see it about a one off statute that no longer exists, and that's why you can talk about it. That's why Justice Kagan could talk about it. And that's why I also have talked about it. He's are. The vestigial remains of of a once existing, but no longer is dinosaur. In legal terms. What about your opinion? H. p. h. s. p. h. is really limited to independent agencies, right? That's right. The governing precedent on independent agencies. So thank the Federal Energy Regulatory commission or the Federal Communications Commission, or the securities and Exchange Commission. All range of independent agencies governed by Humphrey's executor of the nineteen thirty five precedent. The supreme court, which is stabbed that that those are permissible. I there ordinarily traditionally been multi-member bodies, and that was a problem. I thought in the consumer financial protection bureau case that it was only a single director independent agency, but I would have the remedy would have still allowed that agency to continue operating and performing its consumer functions and protecting consumers from improper behavior. What's the biggest single difference between the independent counsel statute, which is now a dinosaur and and the special counsel regulations which are still in effect? Well, there are a whole host of differences. The appointment mechanism was different. The removal mechanism was different. The jurisdictional mechanism was different. The how Justice department policies applied with different. There were so many different features of that old independent counsel statute that combined to convince congress that that statute was. A mistake worse than a mistake really. And also showed, I think why the statute was inconsistent with our constitutional traditions. And the reason for that is because when you create an entity within the federal government within the executive branch, it is not accountable to anyone. It sounds appetizing..
"justice kagan" Discussed on Here & Now
"Well, that just means that you're reading the text of the law, and you know there's a kind of common sense element to this, right? If you're a judge. Then of course, you would start by reading the words of the statute. In fact, all judges do that. So textual ISM, you know, if it's very wooden, it can lead to results in which legislatures end up having less power. Because if they say something ambiguous than the courts will kind of pull back, but it's not necessarily conservative or a liberal outcome. And in fact, Justice Kagan has quipped that. We're all textualist now. So textualist doesn't really do the same work of separating. -servative jurists from liberal ones. He's going to be asked about presidential power. Given his background. He worked under independent counsel Ken Starr while Starr was investigating the Clinton Lewinsky affair at that time. Kavanagh push for harsh questions for Clinton with explicit sexual details. That mammal came out. He though didn't recommend criminal prosecution of Clinton while in office in two thousand nine Kavanagh wrote an article in the Minnesota law review is saying that the president should not be criminally prosecuted while in office. So what might questions be? What answers are you looking for about presidential powers? Well, the senators will ask him why he's had this change of heart. He as you know, a lawyer for Ken Starr was gung ho about going after President Clinton. But then as you said, he wrote a law Arctic larvae article Amaechi said it's debatable whether presidents can be indicted. And in that article, he really sort of put it on congress for solve that issue. But congress has not really resolved. Did at all. And so then the question will become for the senators. What would you do as to Justice? But I think we can expect cavenaugh to do his best to try to duck that question. That's sort of a classic mode that we've seen from supreme court. Nominee is in the last few decades. The Democrats were pushing for Cavanaugh to recuse himself at any cases involving President Trump and euro that there's an ongoing investigation. What are the case they're making? Was the case they're making. Well, you know, Democrats are saying the president who could be indicted is now in a position to choose the person who could have the deciding vote on that matter. There's something wrong with that picture, but just Kavanagh's knocking to agree to recuse himself before he gets the court, there's he doesn't need to do that to win confirmation votes since Republicans control the Senate and also supreme court justices control the own the rules for their own recusals. There is no higher body that says like, oh, no, you really do after accused yourself. So this choice will be up to him. Roe v, Wade Cavanaugh told Maine, Senator, Susan Collins said he supports, oh no, she supports abortion rights and he said that Roe v Wade was settled law, but a lot of people are looking for different language there. What is that? Well, settled law is all well and good until it becomes unsettled. The supreme court very much has the power to. Overturn Roe versus Wade. And so to say that something currently is settled law is not to say that it will remain thus in the future because the question would be, do you think it was decided fairly? Is that the language? Is that right? What do you think it was decided correctly? Would you uphold it if you were on the bench? And I think again, we will seek Cavanaugh sidestep that question when in reality, what we know from his records suggests that he would certainly a road access to abortion if not overturn Roe outright entire, you know right away. We only have so many of the questions, but we've run out of time. I can't believe what gave you extra time to, but this I know kind of weak. It's going to be because there's so much to talk about just quickly thirty seconds doesn't matter. A lot of people say, this just doesn't matter. It's going to happen. It's done deal. It matters a great deal for the shape of American law. Hearing hearings matter. Is that even hearing don't matter, the hearings don't matter? Well, we're going to devote so much time to them this week Emily. How does it matter? The process is important for informing all of us, right, but we pretty much know what's going to happen. Emily Bama basil on staff, right at the New York Times magazine. Thank you..
"justice kagan" Discussed on WDTK The Patriot
"Show is sponsored in part by as tag public adjusters and here is charlene from troy on the patriot hi charlene say you know a lot of disruptions of the lesson hopping calling and think people are gonna die this is all part of a political strategy this is an excellent isn't interested they're crazy which they i think they are it's part of an overall political strategy what's that well it's the cost so much two seconds like the fascist like the brown shirts of the blackshirts rioting in the streets is causing all sorts of problems and upset society and eventually they can get concessions but what they want by taking up the pressure and keeping everybody on the edge with their with their rioting with their little screaming and yelling this is this is this is what the brown lease blackshirts did well charlene i i'm not gonna say you're right or you're wrong because i think you're right but we've come a little way we've learned a few things and let's hope that we don't have to use them that's that's all i'm gonna say the idea that you can push people around people who love the constitution love the flag love the country as founded that you can push people around with nutcases the doing weird stuff in the streets and so forth without some some pressure the other way is not not one that's not side i'd wanna be on let me just put it that way here's pam in saint clair shores on the patriot hi pam hi john i just wanna say you know i trust president trump but i am i am nervous about his red cavenaugh peck brad kavanagh graduated from yale which is everybody knows that's a liberal hotbed and if i heard correctly cavanaugh also clerked for justice kagan which really scares me and last but not least john mccain along with the new york times are praising this guy to the help so i do trust trump i trust his judgment but i'm nervous about this peck okay he clerked for justice kennedy if i understand correctly well they mentioned they mentioned kennedy and then they also mentioned he's got he has some connection with justice justice kagan justice kagan gave him a job about on the on the court and have been just check that out and you'll find that it was quite surprising to a lot of people but she did yeah it makes me nervous it shouldn't well but you know if you wanna be nervous be nervous i wanna know why i wanna know why the conservative picks throughout the years have turned and become liberal but the liberal never turn and become conservative i mean what's up with that i mean i don't know that sounds like a book maybe you should write it but it's it's a good question and i and if you find out some of the answers to it and some of the examples to it you be sure and sharing with me okay i have no answers to that but maybe someone else does okay that's what we do we throw them out and and sometimes we get people who answer and then we get a chance to talk about him please please tell your other caller who's you know nervous about all this yelling and screaming in the streets throughout history the way they overthrew the government was the leaders didn't have the military behind them but trump has the military behind him onto percent so i think we're safe in that area well said pam appreciate your call thanks you have yourself a great night eight hundred nine to three ninety three eighty five that's eight hundred nine to three wd.
"justice kagan" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"President who shares many of your views there's still a lot of variance between the retiring justice and their successor and a good example of this might be justice stevens replacement by justice kagan that there is from the spot that justice stevens occupied so even though even retired to president obama in successor had are somewhat different voting records it was very interesting that from from reading your report it seemed that justice suitor who was a republican appointee who retired during a democrat a democratic president obama's term see his replacement seemed to be more in line with the way he'd been voting yes yes and by the measure in my paper and thinking about justices ideology as evidenced by their voting records and how likely they are to be replaced by someone with a similar voting record which is also very important when we're considering what would happen with justice kennedy now you mentioned of justice suitor actually people have been talking about human the news a lot lately i guess with the fear that will trump's nominee or one of the nominees turn out to be the lake justice cedar and i actually do have some earlier research that provides historical perspective on that historically presidents actually have been disappointed and appointed a justice who might side with justices appointed by the other party most of the time in many cases almost half of the cases at least in this study was from eighteen thirty eight to two thousand and nine so you can take payments examples like president eisenhower i've been disappointed in the liberal voting patterns of chief justice warren and justice brennan and saying that they were the worst mistakes he ever made that has happened in the past and some people are wondering if it will happen here i don't think that's likely to happen here for a couple of reasons first of all in recent decades presidents have really improved their performance they've done a much better job appointing justices who i'm probably as their pointing president would like them to and again this is general voting records across all nine unanimous cases but they they've done better on that score and part of that probably relates to the careful vetting process that presidential administrations have gone through truly make sure they can carefully read through and studied every single thing these various candidates have written to understand how they're likely to vote so in this case i tend to think that in process that has produced stuff to score such will probably have similar success no matter which one of the three or four candidates justice trump names today all right well it's a very interesting article and it's the first time that all these different parameters have been examined in the light of supreme court justices retirements thanks so much for being on the show that's christine caboche distinguished scholar in residence at loyola university chicago school of law her papers entitled to justices time their retirements politically it certainly is a look at the mathematics of it all coming up on bloomberg politics policy power and law will continue discussing president trump supreme court pick with russell moore who was from the southern baptist convention this is bloomberg.
"justice kagan" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Comically rational decision today for some someone who used to be a member of a public union is to say hey if i can get this for free why should i pay for it and then of course we'll we'll deal a blow to the effectiveness of unions both in bargaining and in other activities and it will diminish their power which is a long sought goal of conservatives so let me quote justice kagan again in her dissenting decision she said this decision weaponize is the first amendment in a way that unleashes judges now and in the future to intervene an economic and regulatory policy what is she saying she saying that this line of decisions gives judges enormous power because almost all human activity involves speech and if judges are able to say that any kind of regulation securities regulation regulation of pharmaceuticals regulation of public safety because it involves speech may violate the first amendment that's transferring a ton of power from elected legislators who usually make laws to judges i don't read a couple of other things in her decision here she said that the justices overruled the previous law because they wanted to the first amendment was meant for better things was meant to undermine but to protect democratic governments including over the role of public sector unions and she added at every stop black road rulers are overriding citizens choices what struck me is especially interesting about that is that she's really criticizing judges as a group i don't know whether she's criticizing just the justices are judges in general for overly things because they want to and for overriding citizens choices black robed rulers that's a strong phrase when you're talking about your fellow justices yes and that's coming from justice kagan is not above thrower who's actually a very strategic thinker who doesn't lightly make these accusations so for her to get so worked up means that something very important is happening here one way to shorthand what she's saying she's accusing her conservative colleagues of what we used to call judicial activism of using judicial power to strike down a duly enacted laws and saying that they found now a tool which gives them the opportunity in many many settings little being the first amendment that's right so officially judicial conservatives are supposed to be translating the constitution to the letter of the law and they're supposed to be opposed to judicial activism well you know in their defense they would say the first amendment is an important value it's an important way to protect citizens from an overreaching government they would say that the states that had these public union laws had no business tilling workers what they should say now you may question whether in paying a fair share fear agency fees these things are called is actually speaking but if you believe that the first amendment should protect you from having to do that the fact that elena kagan condemn black robed rulers overriding citizens choices is that also an indication that there is more attention within the supreme court i think you've said in the past that in spite of conflicting decisions the justices get along i'm wondering if that's starting to change i share your intuition terry i think this last term was very divisive they they issued a very small number of decisions but it took them forever to do it there were many many separate opinions in the sense there were a lot of heated exchanges they were many fewer unanimous decisions than we had last term i think this is a court in transition and whatever tensions we saw this last term will only increase when we get if we get when we get a new trump justice on the court which will really alter the ideological composition of the supreme court so i think this is is a tense body at the moment let's take a short break here and then we'll talk some more if you're just joining us my guest is adam lip tack he's the supreme court correspondent for the new york times we'll be right back this is fresh air.
"justice kagan" Discussed on KQED Radio
"Welcome to this morning's forum program i'm michael krasny the united states supreme court just ruled against labor unions and a major labor case janice versus the american federation of state county and municipal employees the five to four decision will likely have broad implications for labor unions and california and across the country at issue is whether public sector unions can compel nonunion members to pay socalled fair share union fees president trump this morning praise the ruling in post on twitter writing that the decision was quote a loss for the coffers of the democrats we're going to discuss what the decision means for public sector unions in california and across the nation in this opening forum segment joining us in studio is ken jacobs he's chair of the center for labor research and education uc berkeley welcome can jacob good morning good morning to you and good morning to worry little professor of law you see hastings college of law professor of constitutional law there and former federal prosecutor and former us supreme court clerk joining us by phone good to have you back with us very little roy little do we have you i'm here okay i'm glad you're here thank you because i didn't hear it first patrick uses also with us he's president of liberty justice center and he represented served a representing the mark janus spring court case we'll hear from him as well this hour and welcome patrick good to have you thank you for having me well let me begin actually with you or a little and let's talk about what this case comes down to i mean in many people's minds it came down to a first amendment issue in a did for the supreme court yeah it's the first amendment decision and there's a five to four disagreement among the justices justice alito has pre staged in a prior opinion we knew this was coming and justice kagan descent set some broader things about the first amendment she says the court is weaponising the first amendment and making it a sword which could be used to attack lots of things that we currently except yesterday's decision on the pregnancy crisis centers is another example of the first minute being very aggressive way the idea here is that you cannot force public sector employees to subsidize the speech of a union if they don't like it and that will change the law in twenty two states it will also have an enormous effect on unions i mean we're not only talking about the fact that union membership may drop off all those washington post post pointed out that may make those remaining stronger in some ways but it's going to read president trump's tweet this morning it's going to hurt the democrats he's right about that well he certainly is in this state the unions public sector unions has been a huge funder various legislative efforts and my of races and presumably there will be a number of people who now refuse to pay the dues even for the union that negotiates their work conditions in their hours and things like that so it's quite controversial and no one quite knows what the effect will be let's get a little bit of the history from you the laurie because it goes back to illinois into a state employee there mark janice but also even before that there was the abboud case in detroit yeah the case of course was forty some years ago justice stewart router he was republican appointee and he basically was trying to threadneedle between the concerns of employers public employers who would like to deal with just one union so having exclusive union to negotiate with and the need for that union to have funding to support its negotiation efforts as collective bargaining and the idea that everybody in the shop everybody in the sector will benefit from those collective bargaining efforts so should they have to pay some fair share whether they are members or not and so it's been the law in twenty two states have made the decision to follow that arrangement that fair share arrangement twenty eight states down quite controversial area and today the supreme court in a sense has constitutionalize the position of the twenty eighth as you don't do it and now yeah the twentieth to have chosen this will be denied that choice so this just came down in some ways to to to sort of simplify and cut to the chase here to whether an employee has to pay will we're called agency fees which were slightly less than union fees as part of their contract provisions or whether it's unconstitutional.
"justice kagan" Discussed on KQED Radio
"And click on the segment or tweet us our twitter handle is at form but we certainly do want to hear from you let me go back to you or a little just because i was reading some conservative professors who were disagreeing with the decision the patrick essentially supported this with it on the basis of well people are paying taxes income taxes and they go for example to a war that people don't support and then there's the argument against that will war isn't necessarily a question of public interest gives us the nuances of this many of them in terms of not necessarily how the supreme court broke down but how we see this in terms of example government taxing us for that matter is there a parallel well you're absolutely right that the applications of this decision and yesterday's decision on the pregnancy crisis centers are huge and justice kagan says you are weaponising the first amendment what she means of course is that the first amendment doesn't really say much it says congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech that's all it says well of course we're not even talking about a congressional law here so we're a long way from the originalism of the first amendment what did it mean in the past people have objected to federal expenditure on lots of programs they don't agree with a lot of people right now who don't agree with certain things that the executive branch is doing the supreme court has always said well you just have to pay your fair share because ultimately it's for everybody's good and you can't challenge those passes this decision suggested well gee maybe it's a much more fundamental first amendment injury to make me pay taxes for program i don't want to support maybe maybe i should get a reduction for all the programs you know maybe i should itemize my return that's very has been rejected clearly over time but yesterday's decision in today's decision increase of force if you will of the first amendment concerns and no one knows where it ends i mean yesterday they said you can't force someone to display a licensed well tell that every taxi driver in the country who's got a display their license so what the first amendment means and how powerful it is we're we're in uncharted territory here and and the history of people objecting to certain governmental programs that they don't like is is pretty huge so i i think that is right when she says boy we're into uncharted territory under the first amendment well let me read some comments coming in from different parts of the territories that were broadcasting to listening rights fall of unions destroyed the middle class and allowed corporations to pit one group against another destroy work protections move employees relationships to contractor relationships and depress wages for all dividend excuse me divided employees are helpless victims of corporate greed bill writes to prevent freeriders california law allows objectors to pay in lieu fees to charities instead of union dues this case is all about weakening unions not about speech let me get a call around here and that's tonia good morning you're on the air hi i'm a teacher by trade but now i work in the library system and i am working three different libraries throughout the bay area because i can't get a full time job and also they don't wanna put me into the unit and because it's become the managers in the cities and the other man's they have power and the private sector as well have power over the workers so we're stuck working so many jobs starting here hear that echo so i echo i'll tell you i thank you for your call and for describing your situation and it gets right to the heart of what unions do on some level and jacobs let me go to you on this we'll go to some more calls in just a moment but you kind of shepherd at a study over uc berkeley that i think bear some talking about here it almost reads like a brief reunions forgive me for saying that but you know it says for example that the report says a union members earn more than thirteen percent nonunion members they have better health access in terms of health care it increases gender equity and racial equity i mean all sounds frankly pretty idealistic but the data's there the data's there in this study we were comparing union workers with nonunion workers who look like them in terms of same industry demographic characteristics education experience and it's very very clear those workers are covered by a collective bargaining agreement earn on average about.
"justice kagan" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"The wall street journal sure several in deference to the doctor the dates back to nineteen eightyfour the supreme court in that case announced that when a statute a federal statute of ambiguous as most federal statutes are then the courts should defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of those ambiguous statutes i'm really simplifying the rule but that's basically the core of it is worth noting that the doctrine when it originated in nineteen eighty four was again created by the rank west court in response to the lower courts really trying to micromanage improve and impede the deregulatory efforts of the reagan administration and for years the real critics of chevron deference to those who wanted to water it down where i think more on the left on the right but in the last ten years as the administrative states ecstasy's have become more and more palpable and the courts willingness to intervene and push back against the agencies has become really more and more on unimpressive there's been more of a call to reform the chevron doctrine and the courts to do more of their own work in interpreting the law the politics of this strike me adam having now enjoyed your explanation of these particular cases because the politics here suggests that this is not a right left blue red republican democratic debate anymore justice kagan she's understood as the left and justice kennedy is understood as the middle of the road where people get run down but in both these instances they're not following the script they've they've broken out and in limiting the administrative state that's not the cliche is it adam that's right take justice kagan for example she before she came to the supreme court she was in the obama administration she worked in the clinton white house before that you're not gonna find her wandering around a an annual cpac conference anytime soon but cagan is a student of administration and of the president's role in overseeing administration and so here you have a case where these important officials were being appointed not by the president or the president's immediate appointees but by people midlevel bureaucrats within the bureaucracy and that's what the framers the founders the authors of the constitution we're trying to get away from these officers are so important that they really need to be appointed through a transparent accountable way where the accountability runs all the way up to the president and so i'm not surprised actually the keagan sensed or saw something wrong here and that was the point of my op ed in the wall street journal is to remind people that these issues aren't just seen as problems among arch conservative caesar things that raise questions among conservatives and progressives alike and i think they ought to be taken seriously finally adam is there anybody is there anybody weeping because the administrative state to had had a bad day is is there someone cheering the administrative state out there i'd say i don't want to name names but i'd say there is a lot of hesitancy in legal in some legal quarters of making these al jay's more accountable to the political branches the whole reason why aol jays this office was created a really entrenched in the mid twentieth century was to strike a balance between the efficiency of the regulatory process and the independence of judges and so what what congress tried to do in the mid twentieth century is create these like i said junior varsity judges agencies and now i think people are starting to understand the problem but a lot of people whether their professors lawyers people within the bureaucracies they like having these cases that are taken out of the courts and put inside of the agencies for these pseudo judges to make judicial ish determinations inside of the agency adam why does the research felt over institution director of the seaboard and grey center for the study of the administer at george mason i'm john batchelor this is the john batchelor show.
"justice kagan" Discussed on WMAL 630AM
"Next one justice kennedy riding in an eight to one ruling rejecting an agency's interpretation this is power araya harare versus sessions what is the chevron deference you point to in the wall street journal several deference is the doctor the dates back to nineteen eighty four the supreme court in that case announced that when a statute a federal statute is i'm big us as most federal statutes are then the courts should defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of those ambiguous statutes really simplifying the role but that's basically the core of it is worth noting that the doctrine when it originated in nineteen eighty four was again created by the rehnquist court in response to the lower courts really trying to micromanage and pro and impede the deregulatory effort to the reagan administration and for years the real critics so chevron deference those who wanted to water it down where i think more on the left on the right but in the last ten years as the administrative states ecstasy's have become more and more palpable and the courts willingness to intervene and push back against the agencies has become really more and more unimpressive there's been more recall to reform the chevron doctrine enforce the courts to do more of their own work in interpreting the law the politics of this strike me adam having now enjoyed your explanation of these particular cases because the politics here suggests that this is not a right left blue red republican democratic debate anymore justice kagan she's understood as the left and justice kennedy is understood as the middle of the road where people get run down but in both these instances they're not following the script they they've broken out and in limiting the administrative state that's not the cliche is it adam that's right i'm gonna take justice kagan for example she before she came to the supreme court she was in the obama administration she worked in the clinton white house before that you're not gonna find her wandering around a an annual cpac conference anytime soon but cagan is a student of administration and of the president's role in overseeing administration and so here you have a case where these important officials were being appointed by the president or the president's immediate appointees but by people midlevel bureaucrats within the bureaucracy and that's what the framers the founder the authors of the constitution we're trying to get away from these officers are so important that they really need to be appointed through a transparent accountable way where the accountability runs all the way up to the president and so i'm not surprised actually the keagan sense or saw something wrong here and that was the point of my op ed in the wall street journal is to remind people that these issues aren't just seen as problems among arch conservative caesar things that raise questions among conservatives and progressives alike i think they ought to be taken seriously finally adam is there anybody is there anybody weeping because the administrative state had had a bad day is is there someone cheering the administrative state out there i'd say i don't want to name names but i'd say there is a lot of hesitancy in legal in some legal quarters of making these lj's more accountable to the political branches the whole reason why jays this office was created and really entrenched in the mid twentieth century was to strike a balance between the efficiency of the regulatory process and the independence of judges and so what what congress tried to do in the mid twentieth century is create these like i said junior varsity judges the agencies and now i think people are starting to understand the problem but a lot of people whether their professors lawyers people within the bureaucracies they like having these cases that are taken out of the courts and put inside of the agencies for these pseudo judges to make judicial ish determinations inside of the agency adam wide is a research fellow at the hoover institution director of the seaboard and grace center for the study of the administrative state at george mason i'm john batchelor this is the john batchelor show am six three washington's mall w a l this is what's going on five to nine am.
"justice kagan" Discussed on Talk 1260 KTRC
"Going to be hot ones don't leave the kids don't leave the dog he's in the car police or grandma or grandpa or anybody else that matter please please please all right the decision was a five to four decision writing for the does teen opinions sonia sotomayor ruth bader ginsburg justice kagan and justice breyer justice so tomorrow lashed out at mr trump quoting anti muslim statements that he made is a candidate and later as president she noted that he called for a quote total and complete unquote ban on muslims entering the us in tweeted that quote we need a travel ban for certain dangerous countries unquote justice sotomayor wrote quote let the gravity of those statements sink in most of these words were spoken or written by the current president of the united states she just missed the majority's argument that the government made his case if the travel ban is necessary for national security saying that no matter how much the government tried to quote launder unquote the president's day moments quote all of the evidence points in one direction unquote justice so tamara accused her colleagues in number jordi of unquestioning acceptance of the president's national security claims justice ruth bader ginsburg joined justice memorials descent so that's how it came down and supreme court careful to separate the president's statements during the campaign says he's been elected and inaugurated since he's taken office separate his statement from the power of any president said the power of the office.
"justice kagan" Discussed on First Mondays
"Concern about whether any plaintiffs would stand to challenge gerrymandering claims depending on how the court ruled i think justice kagan was careful to say look based on what the court says and what the court did say there should be plaintiffs who has standing those people are going to eventually get their way to the court and at some point the court is going to have to decide question soil so love this this part of the majority opinion which the reasoning of this court with respect to the decision of this case is set forth in this opinion and none other very unusual right it's very unusual to have a majority being like up by the way yeah there's a concurrence only got four votes excited in the weird thing is like she joins that part of it too late she's like she's like yeah i totally endorse that even though it's kind of contrary to her purposes it's like the thing we were talking about the marks rule where it's like the court's opinion says what the controlling opinion is enough people joined that statement that it's like okay i guess i mean we wouldn't have had a marks problem here of course because we wouldn't and so yeah that was really interesting to like just just so everyone knows like you have to put keagan comic j concurring if you want to talk about those parts in in the in the concurrence so i thought that was pretty funny i don't have a ton to say about the descent or the kind of partial concurrence from justice thomas he says you know basically i would just have dismissed the case rather than giving them another shot to sort of prove all this stuff up but if you guys have strong feelings about that we can talk about it all right around let's keep going let's go let's go what's next wait their wayfair yeah the case that everyone wanted to really talk about yesterday because it's about internet sales tax and you have to pay sales tax now so what happened so this really presented two questions one was whether one of the main projects eric citron's last year's would be validated and then the second question is whether we are in fact in the cyber age so what does the court say are they in both respects the answer is yes the project is valid congratulations to eric citron as i said on twitter at the architect in every respect of this law of this win even though he didn't argue the case this is really his win and he should be very proud and we definitely are in the cyber age fact was repeated again today justice kennedy really is serious about this cyber age thing so who wants to sort of summarize baseball has gone in this case okay so in wayfair we you know we've talked about this we were talking with this a little bit ian but not yeah we talked about it on a little bit but not not a great length so basically in a two prior cases over the decades nineteen sixty seven case called national bellas has versus apartment revenue of illinois and then on nineteen ninetytwo case called poker versus north dakota both those cases the supreme court had basically endorsed a rule under the socalled dormant commerce clause that states cannot require out of state individuals to collect sales taxes unless they have a physical presence in the state right right and this has been kind of a big deal and now that we're in the cyber age it's a really big deal right because we order things from various online retailers and z z and so in theory there is a legal obligation on the part of the purchaser to pay sales tax on every purchase you're making you're in your home state your i i.
"justice kagan" Discussed on First Mondays
"Is first of all i believe the first use of the phrase average joe in court opinion so that made me happy but also it's just a wonderfully good way to explain what this law is doing definitely so the reasoning of this opinion largely previews what you kind of already noted she concludes that the minnesota statute doesn't substantially impair the beneficiary contracts that were already assigned in part because it is designed to reflect the contract signatories intent and therefore doesn't impair but instead supports the underlying contract exactly it's sort of like opinion has the whole case has an element to it of like sort of commonsense appeal and arguments against it are really very quite formal arguments and those are appealing to some members of the corden we'll talk about justice course itches descendant a minute but like basically what this is about is like you've got this kind of sensible sounding law laid against an objection that is not insubstantial but that is very formal right yes definitely and we'll get his descent in a second but justice kagan's main reasoning is this roughly approximates what the legislature thought most contracts in tores would want in addition to that it supplies default rule so contracts notorious can redesignate their spouse even after the application of this autumn revocation statute and it probably didn't impair their expectations because even prior to this law divorce courts could issue their own revocations and say look we're going to divide the property this way upon the divorce decree so there was already this kind of expectation that insurance designations could be altered upon divorce and so the statue just isn't that kind of outlandish of an interference in a contract and one thing i wonder they don't think the opinion talks about this i don't know if you have an instinct what if the life insurance contractor what if the designation was in a contract that said and the automatic revocation chaumont apply upon divorce like you write the an insurance contract or something that way i suppose there's no necessary reason you couldn't but like i don't know we'll so i think part of why that's not an issue in this case is because this was challenging the retroactive application of the statute divorce contract so these contracts were signed before the revocation statute i think it's almost certain that contract sign afterwards presumably opt out of.
"justice kagan" Discussed on Slate's Political Gabfest
"Mean facts of the case nature of that in this is one of the highly awaited cases of the term jack phillips abakar in colorado did not want to be a wedding cake for a gay couple who came in and asked for the cake for their wedding the couple complained to the colorado civil rights commission because colorado has a civil rights law preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation the couple one at that state agency level jack phillips sued and jack phillips has now emerged victorious in front of the supreme court and yet it's a decision that both sides saw something to celebrate in it was seven to two there was a lot of compromising going on the ruling itself is very fact specific to colorado in a way the disappointed a lot of conservatives so essentially justice kennedy for the majority said it's absolutely clear that colorado can protect gay people from discrimination there was some nice language if you're a gay rights person about how odious on that form of prejudice is however justice kennedy said this colorado civil rights commission did not show sufficient respect for jack phillips's religious beliefs there are few quotes from the commissioners candy pulled out he just thought they were suspicious of religion and that didn't mean phillips would necessarily win below but it meant that this particular proceeding was unfair to him that's the way in which he won but it suggests that if you were a civil rights commission in colorado or another state with a case like this in front of you if you just said nice things about religion along the way to making a finding of discrimination that would be good enough kennedy certainly left the door open to that and then justice kagan wrote a concurrence in which she really invited that kind of outcome.
"justice kagan" Discussed on KGO 810
"But my point is to say it was a six three case right and so who was the liberal that voted with the majority you know obama had that justice kagan from harvard she voted with the conservative that's what it was yeah you know i i look at these things and i think to myself that you know i i do feel like if we picked judges on the supreme court from the judicial system as opposed to you know like putting kid rock on their like trump to that will we will have a slower growth towards whatever direction it is that it seems like the country needs at the time you know i think right now we don't need that's federal government mike we used to we're gonna have gorsuch instead of merrick garland you know years and years don't get me started denny surprises on immigration recently though a little denise surprise us on that deportations the case i think he i think he did on one of them but i'm not i'm not i'm not optimistic going forward just because of the policy issues that i care about you know i'm a progressive as well but i look at some of the stuff sometimes you know i i i think i'm harder on the democrats in some cases because they they fall short in areas that they really need to i mean and they're you know again it's like it's the whole limousine liberal kennedy sort of era you know in the clinton voting for doma ninety seven while calling himself a liberal and progressive i look at that and i think the myself i don't even know who's on which side anymore you know well i think that like you said about the marijuana situation here in california you know it might be very good for the policies that california and our voters here to pursue but think of this in some other state you know where they have ak forty sevens that let's say the feds want to prohibit if they ever get to that point prohibiting you know ak47's again and here's idaho or some other state that insists on legalizing them and saying hey under murphy versus ncaa your commandeering our state legislature to do to prohibit ak forty seven so yes the thing about the law you establish the.